Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it consulted on parking charges for a local park. Therefore, we cannot challenge the Council’s decision. The Council was also not at fault for the way it handled Mrs X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled proposed parking charges for a local park. She complained the Council failed to follow proper procedures, the consultation was flawed, the equality impact assessment was inadequate, and the Council was not transparent about its legal advice. Mrs X also complained the Council mishandled her complaint.
2. Mrs X said it caused stress and frustration, and she has lost trust in the Council. Mrs X has concerns about the scheme’s impact on health inequalities and accessibility for low-income families, older adults, and disabled residents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We 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)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. Mrs X submitted a freedom of information request to the Council about its legal advice. The Council said it would not disclose its legal advice as legal advice is exempt from such requests.
8. Part of Mrs X’s complaint was that the Council was not transparent about its legal advice (its response to her freedom of information request). As I have said above, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer complaints about freedom of information requests to the Information Commissioner.
9. Mrs X told me she has complained to the Information Commissioner. This was the appropriate way to address this part of her complaint. For this reason, I have not investigated this part of Mrs X’s complaint.
10. I have investigated the rest of Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered the information and documents provided by Mrs X and the Council. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint. I considered the relevant policy, set out below.
12. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

The Council’s complaints process

13. The Council’s complaints procedure says it will respond to complaints at its first stage (stage one) within ten working days.
14. The procedure says the Council will respond to complaints at its second and final stage (stage two) within 20 working days.

What happened

15. The Council proposed to charge for parking at a local park, where parking had previously been free. In the summer of 2025, the Council held a webinar to get the views of residents, visitors and stakeholders as part of its formal consultation on the proposed charges.
16. After this webinar, Mrs X complained and made a freedom of information request. The Council rejected Mrs X’s complaint, saying it was a freedom of information request. Mrs X asked the Council to consider her complaint at its second and final stage (stage two). She told the Council she was complaining as well as requesting information.
17. Later that month, the Council sent Mrs X its first complaint response (stage one). The Council explained that an officer had initially misunderstood her complaint as a freedom of information request. It said when Mrs X told the Council she was making a complaint, it re-registered her complaint. The Council apologised for the misunderstanding and for the inconvenience this caused.
18. The Council said there were technical problems with its webinar that had not happened during the dry-runs it did to test the format. It said it could not have foreseen these issues and only found out about the problems after the webinar.
19. The Council said it told people during the webinar that it would not be able to answer all the questions it had received during the session. The Council said it told people it would answer all the questions in a “Questions and Answers” (Q&A) document after the webinar. The Council said it was finalising the Q&A document, and it would be available shortly. The Council said it would consider all survey responses, emails, and objections.
20. Mrs X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two.
21. In its stage two response, the Council apologised again for initially mishandling Mrs X’s complaint as a freedom of information request. It said the officer responsible was doing further training.
22. The Council said its cabinet had seen and approved papers that covered the legal, environmental, and accessibility issues. It said equality impact assessments were fluid and it was updating its assessment throughout the consultation/project process.
23. The Council addressed Mrs X’s concerns about the point of parking charges and the impact on accessibility. It said the aim was to balance public health priorities with the long-term sustainability of the park. The Council said the proposed scheme was in line with its policies on climate change and transport.
24. The Council said it had given decision makers all the relevant information to make an informed decision. It said it had followed its practice and process for the consultation and the scheme.
25. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman.
26. In early 2026, the Council presented a report to its cabinet with the outcome of the consultation. It asked cabinet members to consider the results of the consultation, the objections, the consultation questionnaire, the risk register, the equality impact assessment, and the environmental and sustainability assessments.

Analysis

The consultation process

27. Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled proposed parking charges for a local park. She complained the Council failed to follow proper procedures, the consultation was flawed, and the equality assessment was inadequate.
28. Mrs X questioned the Council’s analysis of information, assessments, and objections. She said the Council did not answer all of her questions with evidence, reasoning, or analysis. She had concerns about the overall fairness and transparency of the consultation.
29. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome. 
30. I have considered all the information the Council gave the decision makers. I find no fault with that information. I find the decision makers had enough information in front of them to make an informed decision. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault. And for the same reason, we cannot challenge the Council’s decision.
31. Mrs X questioned whether the Council gave residents and consultees sufficiently clear, accessible, and complete information at the point they were asked to participate. She also questioned whether the Council properly addressed the concerns raised. I find the Council did, on both counts. Mrs X’s disagreement with the Council’s analysis and consideration of all the elements is not evidence of fault.
32. Mrs X believed the webinar was going to be about whether parking charges should be implemented. She said it became clear during the webinar that it was actually about how parking charges should be implemented.
33. Information on the Council’s website says the webinar was to seek the views of park visitors, stakeholders, and residents as part of a formal consultation on the proposals for parking charges. Mrs X’s belief about what the webinar was intended for is not evidence of fault.
34. I also do not find the Council at fault for technical issues with its webinar. This was outside the Council’s control.
35. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault for the way it handled its consultation process.

Complaint handling

36. Mrs X complained the Council mishandled and delayed handling her complaint. She said the Council manipulated its timeframes by initially rejecting her complaint.
37. I find the Council made a mistake when it first rejected Mrs X’s complaint as solely a freedom of information request. When Mrs X raised this with the Council, it resolved the issue by answering her complaint at stage one. Not every error is fault. In this case, I do not consider this error significant enough to be fault.
38. I find the Council sent its stage one response 13 working days after Mrs X initially complained. This is three working days over its ten-day timescale. I find this delay of three days is not significant enough to be fault.
39. I find the Council sent its stage two response within ten working days. This is well within the 20 working days set out in its complaints procedure.
40. Mrs X said there was procedural inconsistency and obstruction in the way the Council handled her complaint. She said the Council gave her different complaint numbers.
41. When Mrs X first complained, the Council’s system automatically gave her a complaint reference number. The Council initially rejected this complaint. Mrs X then asked for stage two without having received a stage one response. This seems to have automatically generated another complaint number. At that point, the Council re-opened Mrs X’s original complaint. The Council sent its stage one and stage two complaint responses using the original complaint reference number.
42. Mrs X said the Council should not have removed the second complaint reference number. She said this was manipulation. I do not agree. I also do not agree that this is evidence of procedural inconsistency or obstruction. The Council’s system automatically allocates reference numbers. I find no fault with the Council for responding at both stages using the same, original complaint reference number. This avoided wider confusion and is evidence of good practice.
43. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault for its complaint handling.

Back to top

Decision

44. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman