The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement of parking and highway contraventions near a school. There is not enough evidence of fault causing the complainant a significant injustice.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council has failed to provide data/information to demonstrate that it enforces highway and parking violations outside his child’s school in the same way as other schools. Mr X says they walk to school every day, and the lack of enforcement means their air quality and general safety is compromised.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We can 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. So, we do not start 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), as amended, section 34(B)) We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered: information provided by Mr X.
the Council’s ‘Parking Services Enforcement Policy’.
the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
I appreciate Mr X is concerned about the level of enforcement of highway/parking contraventions around his child’s school.
But we do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate, we need to consider various tests, including the likelihood of finding fault, and the level of the resultant injustice to the complainant. 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 by an organisation. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to oversee councils’ activities generally.
I find there is not enough evidence of fault causing Mr X a significant injustice to justify starting an investigation into his complaint.
While Mr X may wish for further patrols of the area and more robust enforcement action, the Council is under no duty or obligation to enforce the rules at all times, and it is entitled to decide how to allocate its limited resources across the Borough. The Council has explained to Mr X that the location is on its enforcement plan, whereby officers will patrol during school drop-off and pick-up times. Enforcement has also been increased when issues have been reported, and it says it will make provisions to ensure all three entrance roads are monitored in future visits. The Council also gave Mr X an assurance that his school is being enforced in the same way as other schools.
And whilst I understand Mr X concerns, on balance, the Council’s actions have not caused him a serious enough injustice to warrant us pursuing his complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing him a significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman