Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a parking permit renewal charge introduced by the Council. It is unlikely he would find fault by the Council has caused the complainant injustice that would justify is involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Ms B, has complained the Council has introduced a fee to renew an ‘Event Day’ parking permit for residents living near Wembley Stadium. She says the permits used to be free and residents rejected the idea of a charge during consultation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. It 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)
3. 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’.
4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

5. 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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered what Ms B said in her complaint which included the Council’s response to her concerns. Ms B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. To introduce the renewal charge, the Council had to make a traffic management order (TMO) in accordance with the Regulations. ( Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996)
8. The Regulations set out procedures for consultation and dealing with objections to a proposal before a council makes a TMO.
9. In summary, to begin the formal process, a council must:
• publish a ‘notice of proposals’ in a local newspaper;
• make documents relating to the proposal available for public inspection;
• inform statutory consultees, including the police; and
• give other publicity to the proposal that the council considers is appropriate.
10. A council must publish a notice within 14 days of making a TMO, give adequate publicity to the TMO and write to any objectors outlining the reasons for going ahead with the proposal.
11. The notice must also advise there is a right to apply to the High Court within 6 weeks of the date of the TMO. This can be on the basis that:-
• the council does not have powers to make the order; or
• the council has not complied with the relevant Act or regulations.

Analysis

12. The Council carried out informal consultation on introducing a renewal charge for ‘Event Day’ parking permits. This was not a referendum. It was for the elected Members of the Council to decide what weight to give to the outcome.
13. The Council decided to introduce the renewal charge by a making a TMO. I have seen nothing to suggest fault in how it did this.
14. When the Council published the notice after making the TMO, Ms B had a specific right to apply to the High Court if she believed the Council has not followed the correct procedures.
15. The charge introduced by the Council is £15 every 3 years; the permit is otherwise free. Regardless of whether there was fault by the Council or any remedy Ms B may have had in court, I do not consider any injustice caused to her would justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council has caused Ms B any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman