Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s charge for lost tickets at its city car parks. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation. We will not investigate a complaint about the failure to respond adequately to a freedom of information request. It was reasonable for Mr X to make a complaint to the office of the Information Commissioner which is the body responsible for investigating these matters.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the council charging him £25 for a lost car parking ticket. He says the charge is disproportionate for a genuine mistake. He also says the Council failed to respond to his freedom of information request for details about the lost ticket charging policy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 or continue 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))

3. 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

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says he incurred a £25 penalty when he lost his parking ticket for a Council -owned multi-storey car park. He says the signs advising of the fee were only visible inside the car park and that it was unreasonable to charge such a high penalty for a genuine mistake.
7. The Council says its car parking fees were not increased for a number of years and when the new tariffs were introduced in 2022, the lost ticket fee was increased to ensure it was higher than the actual tariff to deter bogus claims avoiding the full charge. It says the notice boards and its online information make the charge clear.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the reasonableness of the charge. We must use the resources available to us as effectively as possible. Those resources are limited and we have to prioritise for investigation those complaints which are likely to result in significant injustice to the individual. This means 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. Mr X’s claim does not meet the threshold for a significant injustice.
9. With regard to his claim that the Council failed to respond to a freedom of information request about the policy it was reasonable for him to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner. That body investigates complaints about freedom of information matters including delay or failure to respond to requests.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s charge for lost tickets at its city car parks. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation. We will not investigate a complaint about the failure to respond adequately to a freedom of information request. It was reasonable for Mr X to make a complaint to the office of the Information Commissioner which is the body responsible for investigating these matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman