The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a white advisory line to discourage parking in front of a drive. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council installed a white line in the wrong place. He wants the Council to extend the line by three metres so he can charge his electric car.
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 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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and a photograph of Mr X’s vehicle crossover (VCO) and charging port. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X has a VCO. He applied for a white line; these are advisory lines to deter people from parking in front of a VCO. The lines are not legally enforceable. Mr X explained he needs a white line in front of the dropped kerb so he can charge the car. The Council gave a quote for a three or six metre line. Mr X paid for the longer line.
There is an area where the path has sunk next to the VCO. Mr X wanted the Council to place the white line in front of his VCO and the sunken path so he could protect the area in front of the port and charge his car.
The Council placed the line in front of the VCO. Mr X complained and explained he needed the line to protect the area in front of the port and the sunken path.
The Council said the longer white lines are for extended VCOs. It said it should have stated this on the quote. The Council refunded the difference between the quotes. It said it can only place white lines in front of a VCO and the area in front of the charging port is not a VCO. The Council explained that a VCO includes an area of reinforced path but the area where the path has sunk has not been reinforced and is not a VCO. It invited Mr X to apply to extend his VCO. The Council explained why another house Mr X had referred to does not apply to his situation.
I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons. The Council did not provide enough information in the quote. It should have explained the longer line is for double VCOs. This was a mistake but any injustice is not significant enough to require an investigation. This is because the Council has refunded the difference in price, will review the wording of the quote, and explained the correct situation regarding VCOs and white lines. In addition, it seems likely Mr X would have proceeded if the Council had provided the correct information because he mistakenly thought the sunken path was a VCO and longer than a single VCO.
I also will not investigate this complaint because, aside from the misleading quote, there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council installed the white line correctly, next to the VCO, and told Mr X the sunken path is not a VCO so cannot have a white line. It also explained that a white line carries no legal weight. It is, however, an offence to park in front of a VCO and the Council told Mr X he could apply to extend his VCO. The Council also explained it is an offence to drive over a path that has not been constructed as a VCO.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman