The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s queries about parking enforcement and public liability for a road under private ownership. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council has failed to provide answers to his enquiry concerning public liability for a privately owned road which runs close to his property. He says there is a continuous threat to public safety by cars parking on the double yellow lines in the narrow road and that the Council should carry out parking enforcement.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate 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 continue 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.
there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council about parking enforcement in a narrow road close to his property where vehicles park on double yellow lines.
The Council explained the road was in private ownership and, as such, it had no legal powers to carry out parking enforcement. It suggested Mr X contact the owners and gave him the details.
The owners told Mr X they thought the Council was responsible for the road because they had an agreement whereby the Council had been granted a right of way over the road and was obliged to maintain and repair it. The Council acknowledged this but confirmed the agreement did not allow it to undertake parking enforcement.
It told Mr X it had written to the owners enquiring about their plans for parking enforcement on the road and while it had not, at that time, received a reply, it said it would follow up and request a meeting to discuss a solution to the current situation.
The Council has explained to Mr X that it cannot provide him with a definitive response as to who is responsible for parking enforcement on the road, but it is pursuing matters with the owners. Ultimately, if there were a dispute about public liability, it would be a matter for the courts to determine.
While Mr X may be dissatisfied that the matter currently remains unresolved, there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council. Legally, it is of the view that it cannot carry out parking enforcement. However, it has contacted the road owners with a view to resolving the matter.
Final decision
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.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman