The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to dropped kerbs and traffic management in his area. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his application for a dropped kerb, its dropped kerb policy, consultation for a CPZ covering his road and the size of the parking bay outside his house and obstruction from other parked cars.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council about his application for a dropped kerb outside his property and various other traffic management issues.
The Council told Mr X that it would not look again at dropped kerb matters the subject of an earlier complaint to the Ombudsman in 2021. It noted his dissatisfaction with its dropped kerb policy but explained the fact that he had a different viewpoint was not evidence of fault.
It confirmed it had had regard to the comments and feedback it had received in response to its consultation for a CPZ in his area but that the decision had not been decided by a vote alone as other factors had also been considered.
The Council explained there is no minimum size requirement for the length of a parking bay and that if the one outside his property is too small for him to park his car in, it can accommodate a small car. It explained as space in his road is at a premium, bays were installed where it was safe to do so. Following Mr X’s concerns about vehicles obstructing the public footpath, the Council advised Mr X it had increased its patrols and issued PCNs where contraventions were found and that if notified in the future about similar problems it would deploy an enforcement officer to assess matters.
While I understand Mr X is frustrated because of the difficulties he has in parking out the front of his property, I have seen no evidence to suggest there has been fault by the Council in its handling of these matters.
We will not revisit matters the subject of Mr X’s earlier complaint to us about a dropped kerb. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information and while the bay outside his property is too small for him to park his car in, the bay was not installed for his personal use but as a parking space for any vehicle which does fit in it.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council and because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman