Summary: Mr B complains about the free parking system the Council has introduced at the leisure centre he attends. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr B to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council’s free parking system at his local leisure centre should be changed and improved so as to overcome the problem caused to him by the fact he drives a number of different work vehicles to the centre and now has to pay to record these different vehicles on the new system.

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 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 spoke to Mr B and reviewed the information he and the Council provided. 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 is a member of the Council’s Leisure Services which entitles him to free parking for up to four hours in the car park.
6. The old manual parking permit system used by the Council, whereby the user obtained a free ticket from the machine and placed it at the leisure centre’s reception, has recently been changed to a new “virtual parking” system which allows for two cars to be recorded for a member without the need to take a ticket.
7. Mr B drives to the centre in different work vehicles and to change the vehicles recorded under his name costs £5 each time. Mr B complained to the Council about this, proposing improvements it could make to the new system which would resolve the problems and costs he experiences.
8. The Council explained that the limiting of vehicles under the new system is intended to stop people sharing their permit privileges with family and friends and that the administration fee for vehicle changes is charged to cover staff processing costs. It said the new system allowed customers to avoid having to manually collect and display a ticket for each visit but that this old method can still be used. It acknowledged that the new system may not meet Mr B’s needs but that it had no plans to further develop it.

Assessment

9. I understand Mr B is disappointed with the Council’s response to his concerns but I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council which has caused Mr B injustice. His situation is not one the new system can accommodate due to it limiting the number of vehicles allowed on the virtual parking permit.
10. Mr B says the Council has failed to consider the injustice caused by some members being treated differently to others when they incur the administrative cost and that it is pushing him to park outside the car park on double yellow lines on the road within the leisure complex. However, he can still use the manual ticket collection option and, while this may not be his preferred option, its use does not cause him injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr B to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman