Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the introduction of parking bay markings in Mr X’s road where the white line bar markings in front of the dropped kerb at his property have been shortened. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has wrongly reduced the width of the access markings in front of his property following the introduction of a new Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) scheme. He says it has ignored the particular circumstances of his property and driveway and that now access will be more difficult for him and create the risk of car accidents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
7. Mr X may be disappointed with the Council’s decision to reduce the access markings at the front of his property to make them consistent with others in the new CPZ and its view that there were no exceptional circumstances to reinstate them to their original length. However, these are decisions the Council is entitled to make and there is no evidence to suggest fault affected them.
8. The Council did offer an apology for not responding to some of Mr X’s correspondence on the matter but we will not investigate this subsidiary matter when we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman