Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s provision of resident parking spaces in the parking zone in which his property is sited. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council has acted with fault in creating short-term, time restricted parking bays to operate alongside resident parking bays in his parking zone. He says this, and permit holders from other zones parking in his zone, mean there is insufficient resident parking space and he cannot always park close to his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B and the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B lives near the centre of Cirencester and has a residents parking permit for the parking zone in which his property is sited.
6. In his road there are also some short-term parking bays which restrict parking to 2 hours and can be used by non-residents.
7. Mr B complained to the Council about this and said the short-term parking bays should be converted into resident parking bays as he was finding it difficult to park near his home. He also complained that the Council was selling resident parking permits to businesses operating outside his zone.
8. The Council responded by explaining that while it had given a certain amount of parking priority to residents, as there were other road users who wanted to park near the centre it had also introduced other restrictions in the form of short-term parking bays and that it was up to the motorist to check the signs. It also advised Mr B that it was not aware of any instances of permits being sold to businesses operating outside the zone. However, it did acknowledge that the permit signs in the zone were not sufficiently clear and that it would erect clearer signage shortly.
9. The Council has confirmed the new clearer signage is now in place.

Assessment

10. I understand Mr B is frustrated by the shortage of available resident parking space close to his home. However, the Council’s decision to use some of the available space for short-term parking bays instead of resident bays is not evidence of fault by the Council. It is for the Council to decide what parking arrangements to have and the merits of its parking policy and parking decisions are not open to review by the Ombudsman no matter how strongly Mr B may disagree with them.
11. The Council acknowledged that the parking signs for permits in the area were not clear enough but it has now acted to correct this and I see no grounds which warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.
12. Mr B says the existence of the short-term parking bays in his parking zone is contrary to the Council’s policy but this is not the case. Giving priority to residents does not mean they will be given all available parking space and the Council has decided to provide short-term bays for other users.
13. Mr B claims people have been granted permits for his zone who are not entitled to them. However, the Council has confirmed that the numbers he provided have been checked and they correspond with registration numbers which had valid business permits at the time, that the permits were for the area in which the vehicles were parked and that they were not in contravention.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman