Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to Mr X’s questions about an electric vehicle charging bay. This is because the issue does not cause Mr X significant injustice and it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X by investigating it further.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly answer his questions about usage of an electric vehicle charging bay outside his home and declined to explain in what circumstances it may consider removing the bay.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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 information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council installed the charging bay more than five years ago, before Mr X purchased his property. The installation followed due process and it is a matter for the Council alone to decide whether to remove it.
7. While I appreciate the bay is inconvenient for Mr X the Council’s refusal to remove it leaves him no worse off than he was when he bought the property.
8. The Council’s refusal to provide Mr X with internal policies and usage data also does not significantly affect him. It is clear Mr X is hopeful that the Council may remove the bay in the future but it has explained that for the time being, it has no plans to do so. The bay is a permanent feature approved under a Traffic Regulation Order and the Council is under no obligation to remove it. This is the main cause of the injustice Mr X claims and not its failure to respond to his questions.
9. It is in any event not for us to say the Council must release the information it holds about usage of the charging bay. If Mr X believes he is entitled to it he may submit a ‘freedom of information’ request and if he is not satisfied with the Council’s response, it would be reasonable for him to complain to the Information Commissioner.
10. However, regardless of whether the Council releases the information the Council has made a decision it was entitled to make not to remove the charging bay and we cannot say it must change this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the issue does not cause Mr X significant injustice and it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman