The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the failure of a traffic enforcement officer to issue a penalty for a car which Mr X says was causing an obstruction. There is insufficient evidence of fault which caused any significant injustice to Mr X.
The complaint
Mr X complained about a traffic enforcement officer failing to issue a penalty notice to a car owner who had parked close to his car and possibly overhanging double yellow line restrictions. He says the officer would not confirm the car was illegally parked or parked with due consideration. As a result, he is no longer confident that about parking in his local town in case he is unable to leave due to other motorists obstructing his car.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says his car was blocked by another vehicle parked close to the rear. The other car was parked with its wheels within a marked bay but some centimetres of the rear curve outside the bay markings. He asked a parking enforcement officer to issue a ticket for the cat but he refused and treated the matter in an offhand way. Mr X was unable to move his car for up to an hour afterwards.
Mr X complained to the Council about the officer’s actions. The Council told him the officer’s recollection of the incident differed from Mr X’s and it did not consider that there was any fault in his decision not to issue a penalty notice as the car was within the bay markings. The officer said that when he returned to the site an hour later both cars had left.
Parking enforcement officers can issue penalties where they believe a vehicle is parked in contravention of restrictions which are included within a traffic regulation order. Obstructive parking affecting other motorists or access is a matter which is dealt with by the Police as a criminal matter.
Mr X was obstructed by a car parked too near to him. The issue as to whether the car was parked over the restriction markings was the only one which the officer could consider in an enforcement role. In this case the injustice suffered by Mr X was due to the other driver parking close to his car. Even if a penalty had been issued, or if there had been no restrictions at all his car would still have been blocked.
Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the failure of a traffic enforcement officer to issue a penalty for a car which Mr X says was causing an obstruction. There is insufficient evidence of fault which caused any significant injustice to Mr X.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman