Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consultation on civil parking enforcement in his town because it is unlikely we would find fault causing Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council did not take proper notice of responses to consultation about the introduction of civil parking enforcement in his town. He is concerned about the impact of parking charges on local businesses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, shared my draft decision with him and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council carried out informal consultation to gauge public opinion on the introduction of civil parking enforcement in several areas in 2018. Mr X believes the Council failed to take account of the consultation responses and is unhappy it intends to introduce fees for all parking in his local town centre.
5. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Civil parking enforcement alters the way parking restrictions are enforced but it does not itself introduce charges for parking. Parking restrictions and charges are introduced by way of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) and may then be enforced by the issue of a penalty charge notice (PCN) under civil enforcement powers or by issuing fixed penalty notices (FPNs) or excess charge notices (ECNs) and pursuing the driver for non-payment as a criminal offence.
6. When seeking to adopt civil enforcement powers local authorities must consult with those affected but consultation is not a referendum; it does not therefore require support to proceed. Mr X represents a group of local businesses and complains the Council did not take proper account of consultation responses but it is unlikely we would find fault on this point and it did not in any case cause the injustice to local businesses which he claims.
7. As detailed at Paragraph 6 it is a TRO which provides the basis for parking restrictions and charges and this is a separate process which requires its own consultation. If Mr X believes the Council failed to carry out this informal consultation properly he should raise a new complaint about the issue.
8. The proposed TRO must then be published in a local newspaper and any objections considered. It is unclear at what stage the Council is with this process but at the point it makes the TRO, and if Mr X thinks it did not follow the proper procedures, he may challenge it in the High Court. This would be under Schedule 9, Part VI, paragraphs 35 and 36 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman