Summary: Mr X complains the Council misled him into believing it is offering effective surveillance at its park and ride car park when it is not. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council misled him, and is misleading the public, into believing it is offering effective surveillance at its park and ride car park when it is not. His car was vandalised in the car park and he says he wants the Council to accept the points he has made rather than say it is not its problem.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X parked his car at a Council park and ride car park which displayed a Park Mark certificate. This award is part of a Police Crime Prevention Initiative parking scheme aimed at providing safer parking and is given to car parks which are assessed as having management practices and security measures which actively reduce crime.
5. While parked at the car park, Mr X’s car and those of some other drivers were vandalised. He made an insurance claim to the Council’s insurers for damage to his car which was refused. He also made a complaint because he said the car park displayed a Safer Parking award which gave a misleading assurance that members of the public were personally safe and that their vehicles were not at risk of being stolen or vandalised.
6. Due to failings by the Council, it delayed in responding to Mr X’s complaint and it apologised for its poor service. With regard to the substance of Mr X’s complaint, it did not uphold it.
7. At Stage 1 of its complaints procedure the Council explained signs at the car park stated the Council does not accept responsibility for any loss or damage to vehicles or their contents and that the Park Mark signs were present because the site had met the required standards when the assessment had taken place in June 2019. It explained the CCTV was not routinely monitored although this did occur during emergencies, when co-operating with the police or as part of event management. It said the award was issued for two years after which a review would take place taking into account reported crime and management processes.
8. At Stage 2 the Council responded to Mr X’s query to advise the CCTV at the car park was “passive” rather than “active”. It referred to the sign which stated the Council did not accept responsibility for loss or damage and said this reflected the realistic position that while it strove to provide a safer parking environment, no parking arrangements could ever guarantee this. It also commented that the Park Mark award relates not just to safety but also takes into account other matters such as directional signage, lighting and safety.
9. It noted that Mr X’s claim for compensation for a contribution to his repair costs had been rejected by its insurers and so it could not uphold his request for compensation.
10. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

11. While I understand Mr X took the presence of the Park Mark certificate to mean that he and his vehicle were safe in the car park, this is not a guarantee the award gives. The aim of the scheme is to provide safer parking and at the time the car park was assessed in June 2019 the assessors considered it met the criteria for the award. This is not to say it will do so when it is reassessed at the end of the award period.
12. Mr X’s claim for compensation was considered but rejected. If he wants to challenge this decision it is open to him to pursue the matter through the courts but it is not an issue we will investigate.
13. The Council has acknowledged there was fault in the way it dealt with Mr X’s complaint. It has apologised for this and an investigation by the Ombudsman on this issue would achieve no useful purpose.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman