Bristol City Council (19 019 323)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 29 Jul 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr D complains about the Council's changes to its residents parking schemes in late 2019 and the way it dealt with his complaint. We have found no fault causing injustice in relation to the changes to the parking scheme, but Mr D was caused time and trouble by fault in complaint handling. The Council has agreed to make a payment to him to acknowledge this injustice.

The complaint

  1. Mr D complains about the Council's changes to its residents parking schemes in late 2019. In particular he complains:
    • the Council failed to consult on the changes or communicate directly with residents, causing considerable confusion and inconvenience.
    • the decision to no longer replace unused physical visitor permits with valid ones will lead to unfair and inconsistent treatment, as different residents had permits that expired at different times.
    • the Council failed to respond to his queries and delayed replying to his complaint for 10 months causing him time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
  3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I spoke to Mr D about his complaint and considered the information he sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries.
  2. Mr D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Traffic Regulation Orders

  1. If a council wants to create a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) it must make a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). The council must follow the procedures set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Local Authorities Traffic Order Regulations 1996. These say the council must publish its proposed TRO in a local newspaper and take what other steps it considers appropriate to publicise its proposal.
  2. A council can make minor changes to the TRO by a “minor order” without the need to advertise or consult. The Regulations say a minor order can be used to change the method by which any charges for the use of a parking place are to be paid.
  3. To bring a minor order into effect a council must publish a notice in a local paper within 14 days of its decision and the order is not effective for another 14 days. In the notice the council must say where someone can view documents related to the order.

The Equality Act

  1. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. The Act includes a duty for public sector bodies to make reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities (“people with protected characteristics”).
  2. This means that a council must be able to show how it had due regard to the impact of its policies and services on people with protected characteristics. One way of showing due regard is to carry out an equality impact assessment, but the council is under no legal duty to do this.

The Council’s complaints process

  1. The Council has a two stage complaints process. Its policy it to respond to complaints within 15 working days. If the person remains dissatisfied and asks to escalate their complaint, the Council will carry out a further investigation. It aims to reply within 20 working days.

What happened

  1. Mr D lives in an area where residents’ parking is controlled by a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). The TRO sets out that to park in the area vehicles must display a valid paper residents’ parking permit or visitor’s permit (scratch card). Residents received 50 free visitor permits each year, with a no refund policy in place for any expired ones. Additional visitor permits cost £1 each.
  2. In 2014 the Council decided to replace its parking permit management system when the contract with the provider expired in 2019. One of the reasons was to enable the permit system to become digital. Residents would register and apply for permits online and there would be no need to display a paper permit.
  3. The Council assessed the impact of the proposed changes on people with protected characteristics in October 2018. It concluded there would be no adverse impact from moving to digital parking permits as long as the software met accessibility standards.
  4. In March 2019 the Council amended all its resident parking area TROs using a minor order to enable virtual/digital parking permits to be issued as an alternative to paper permits. It published the minor order notice on 12 March in the local press. The order became effective on 31 March.
  5. The Council did not carry out any public consultation on its change to digital parking permits. It issued a press release on 1 November which received local press coverage. This explained that from November, residents who were due to renew their permits would receive a letter asking them to do so online. Visitor permits would also be applied for online and would become virtual, rather than paper-based. Existing paper permits could be used until they expired.

Mr D’s queries

  1. Mr D contacted local councillors on 29 November 2019. He was concerned that there had been little publicity about the change and that residents had “recently purchased books of 2019 visitor permits for £50 each, only to discover that they cease to be of use in five weeks time and no re-payment is possible”.
  2. Mr D sent two further emails to the Council or councillors over the next few days. He asked why the Council had not written directly to residents about the change. He also said that at the end of 2018 some residents were sent visitor scratch cards that expired at the end of 2019 and others received scratch cards which expired in 2021 or 2022. Mr D felt this was unfair because residents whose scratch cards expired in 2019 would need to pay £50 each year for additional vouchers but others could continue to use theirs for a further three years.
  3. The Council replied to Mr D on 12 December. It said it would refund the value of purchased visitor permits, if they expired in less than 12 months from issue and proof of payment could be provided. Officers also replied to the councillor, who forwarded that email to Mr D. The email said paper permits and visitor scratch cards would still be issued for some types of permits or if the resident did not have access to a computer.
  4. Mr D replied to the councillor that the email did not answer his questions about the notification and expiry dates. He said previously the Council had exchanged expired, unused visitor scratch cards for free in-date ones. The move to digital permits meant this was no longer possible. He also contacted the cabinet member. There was some internal correspondence between the cabinet member and officers. Officers considered they had already responded to Mr D’s queries so no further response was sent.
  5. Mr D contacted the Council again on 21 January 2020 as he considered he had not received a response to his queries. He said he would bring his complaint to the Ombudsman. The Council did not reply as it considered it had nothing to add to its previous response and it would await contact from the Ombudsman.

Mr D’s formal complaint

  1. Mr D approached the Ombudsman but it was to soon for us to investigate as he had not yet completed the Council’s complaints process. Mr D wrote to the Council again on 11 March 2020 making a formal complaint. He received no response.
  2. Mr D came back to the Ombudsman in July. In response to our contact the Council said it had not yet dealt with Mr D’s complaint and it would issue a “stage two” complaint response as soon as possible.
  3. The Council sent its stage two response on 19 November. It apologised for the delay in replying and said:
    • Digital parking permits could be updated by phone and households without internet access could apply for permits using a paper form.
    • The Council had decided not to notify every individual household of the change to digital due to the cost and because it considered the change to be an improvement in service. The TRO had been amended to allow for the move to digital permits and there had been no change to the policy around resident or visitor permits.
    • When the parking permit scheme was introduced the aim was for the permits to be valid for 12 months from date of issue. For operational reasons the expiry date on visitor scratch cards was up to four years from date of delivery to the Council. The difference in length of validity for scratch cards received depended on which pack was opened at the point of issue. There was no evidence that any specific individual or group of residents had been treated unfairly.
    • The Council accepted some unused visitor permits nearing expiry could previously be swapped for ones with a longer dates. This was done on a case by case basis and not as a matter of course or policy, except where paid for visitor permits were due to expire prior to twelve months from purchase when they would be automatically exchanged.
  4. Mr D remained dissatisfied and came to the Ombudsman.

My findings

  1. Mr D complains the Council did not consult residents or notify them individually of its move to digital parking permits. There is no fault here as the Council was not required to do so.
  2. In introducing Mr D’s and other residents’ parking schemes in earlier years the Council had engaged with residents and followed the statutory procedure to introduce a TRO. This included publicising the scheme and considering any objections to it. When the Council decided to move to a digital system, it was only required to publish a minor order. This does not require any publicity or consultation. The Council acted in line with the Regulations when it published the minor order notice and there is no evidence of fault.
  3. The Council decided not to write to every resident in advance of the change and to instead issue a press release and inform residents as they renewed their permits. It was entitled to make this decision and there is no fault in the way it did.
  4. Mr D complains the different expiry dates on the visitor scratch cards cause unfairness. However, I do not find that Mr D has been caused any injustice by the change. Although some residents have cards which have not expired this does not cause an injustice to Mr D or to others who have expired cards. Under the previous paper-based system Mr D was entitled to 50 free visitor scratch cards each year and could purchase additional ones. This remains the same under the new system. In addition, the Council offered to refund the cost of his 2019 unused paid for visitor scratch cards, so Mr D would not be out of pocket. Although there was previously an ad hoc system to replace expired scratch cards for free, this was not part of the Council’s official policy. So whilst I appreciate it is frustrating that this facility is no longer available, I cannot say that it is fault by the Council not to continue with this as it is acting in line with its policy.
  5. There was some concern about the impact of the change on those who are unable to access or use computers. The Council considered the impact of the changes on those with protected characteristics. It introduced measures to allow those without internet access to call the Council and complete paper application forms. This is in line with the Equality Act 2010 and there was no fault.
  6. There was fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr D’s queries and complaints. The Council replied to Mr D’s queries on 12 December 2019 but he continued to make contact as he did not consider he had received responses to all his queries. I agree; the 12 December response only refers to refunding the unused scratch cards. He was also advised about the measures for those without internet access. But there was no response to his query on consultation or the expiry dates.
  7. My view is that when Mr D wrote again to the Council on 21 January 2020, it should have replied to him and signposted him to its complaints procedure. I find its failure to do so was fault and caused him time and trouble, because when he approached the Ombudsman we were unable to investigate as he had not yet made a formal complaint to the Council.
  8. The Council then delayed responding to the formal complaint he made in March 2020. It should have sent a stage two response by May 2020, it sent it in November. Whilst I appreciate this was when the Council was busy dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic my view is this was an avoidable delay which caused Mr D time and trouble.

Agreed action

  1. Within a month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to pay Mr D £200 to acknowledge the time and trouble he was put to in pursuing his complaint caused by fault.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings