Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010 when providing its parking disc scheme. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating. Also, we cannot decide whether the Council has breached the Equality Act, so it is reasonable to expect Mr X to raise the matter in court.

The complaint

1. Mr X is Disabled and says he has a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
2. Mr X complains the Council failed to show how it meets its duties towards Disabled people under the Equality Act 2010, including the Public Sector Equality Duty, when providing parking services under its parking disc scheme.
3. Mr X complains about the adequacy of the Council’s complaint response, as well as delays and poor communication during the process. He says, as a Disabled person, the Council’s lack of clear, timely and accessible complaints handling caused additional stress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

7. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. In certain short stay parking places, the Council provides time-restricted free parking when a parking disc is correctly displayed. Mr X received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) from the Council for an alleged parking contravention relating to the parking disc scheme.
11. Mr X made a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Council about the scheme.
12. Mr X complained to the Council that its FOI response showed the Council failed to have due regard to its equality duties when providing parking services under its parking disc scheme. For instance, he said the Council’s response showed there was no specific process for making reasonable adjustments for Disabled residents and it had failed to assess the accessibility of its letters, signage or notices in its car parks.
13. As a person with a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, Mr X said he was caused distress and uncertainty that his rights were not being upheld by the Council. He said the Council’s failure to show how it met its equality duties when making PCN enforcement decisions amounted to systemic discrimination.
14. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. 
15. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.
16. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council has shown it had due regard to its equality duties towards Disabled people under its parking disc scheme. This is based on the following, which the Council explained in its complaint responses:

• it has “repeater” signs in car parks to remind drivers to display the parking disc and additional signage with visual representations of the parking disc to assist users, including those with certain disability-related needs;
• as required by law, the Council has a PCN appeals process. During its appeals process, the Council considers all representations made, including any disability-related reasons raised in the challenge. It considers and puts in place any reasonable adjustments that it considers necessary so the individual can access the appeals process. Mr X was able to access this process by making informal representations after receiving a PCN and requesting reasonable adjustments; and,
• its parking services have a process whereby it considers and puts in place any reasonable adjustments on a case-by-case basis for individuals.

17. So, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
18. Further, it is not our role to assess whether the scheme complies with the Public Sector Equality Duty. The decision to whether the Council has breached the Equality Act is a matter for the courts. If Mr X believes the Council’s actions are discriminatory and it has failed to properly apply the law, he can challenge the Council’s parking disc scheme in court. It is reasonable to expect him to do so.
19. In its complaint response, the Council said it did not routinely monitor or track reasonable adjustments when processing routine PCN appeals or complaints. It gave clear reasons why it did not consider this was necessary. It said storing such sensitive information could risk non-compliance with data protection legislation. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. We will not investigate this matter. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider complaints about data protection and the Council’s application of the relevant law. So, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to refer this part of his complaint to the Information Commissioner.
20. It is not a proportionate use of our limited resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling, including reasonable adjustments, when we are not considering the substantive matters. Any separable injustice is not significant enough to justify our further involvement. So, we will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling as a standalone issue.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010 when providing its parking disc scheme. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating. Also, we cannot decide whether the Council has breached the Equality Act, so it is reasonable to expect Mr X to raise the matter in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman