The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway restrictions affecting his business. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council issuing permits to contractors to use on-street parking near his shop for site deliveries. He says this has prevented customers from parking close by and reduced the footfall into his shop, affecting his business as a result. He wants the Council to compensate him for loss of business due to the parking restrictions.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X owns a small supermarket on a street which has parking restrictions on one side and on-street parking on the other. He says that his business relies on shoppers being able to park close by and passing trade. In 2021 the Council granted permits for contractors to use the on-street parking section for loading and site deliveries during an extensive redevelopment project.
Mr X says the loss of the on-street parking has caused a significant downturn in footfall for his business. As the works and permit are to continue until mid-2023 he asked the Council to compensate him for loss of trade.
The Council advised Mr X that whilst the suspension of parking may affect some businesses and residents, there is no statutory right to park on the highway and it is a desirable amenity which many businesses do not have. There was no suitable alternative off-street site for the development and so the parking area had to be utilised to ensure traffic flow was not held up by construction delivery and loading. The Council told Mr X that its does not offer compensation for highway works or restrictions and there is suitable nearby parking in the locality.
The Ombudsman may not question the merits of decisions which have been made in a proper manner. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about highway restrictions affecting his business. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman