Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council discriminates against the complainant by allowing car meets to take place in its car parks without a licence. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains that the Council allows car meets to take place in its car park without the organisers having to apply for an events licence. Mr X says that during one of the car meets, cars were parked in the disabled bays which prevented disabled people like him from parking. Mr X says the Council’s approach to these car meets discriminates against him because he is disabled, and he wants the Council to stop them taking place in the future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council said it considered if a licence was needed for the car meet. It considered several factors including the number of attendees, the risk to the Council and if the event would have exclusive use of the site. The Council concluded that in this case a licence was not needed but told the organisers that they would need to pay for parking and that other cars would be allowed to use the car park.
6. In support of Mr X’s complaint, he provided several images which showed parking contraventions, including cars parked in disabled bays. The Council said it could not act on the contraventions retrospectively but would meet to discuss similar meetings in the future.
7. The Council has told me that relevant officers did meet to discuss its approach to future car meets. It was agreed that there would be an expectation that attendees will follow the parking restrictions, and any identified contraventions would be dealt with by the issuing of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
8. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because I have seen no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter. It considered if the organisers of the car meet needed an events licence but concluded that it did not meet the criteria to be considered an event. It has fully explained to Mr X its reasons for reaching this decision. Mr X may strongly disagree with the Council’s decision, but that does not mean it has done anything wrong.
9. I have seen no evidence that the Council discriminated against Mr X as a disabled person. It has noted Mr X concerns about parking contraventions at a previous car meet and acknowledges that cars were parked in disabled spaces. However, it has agreed that if this is witnessed at future meets it will be dealt with via a PCN. I see no fault with this approach.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman