Southend-on-Sea City Council (19 020 374)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 12 Feb 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Council is not at fault for the way it considered Mrs X’s petitions about parking and for the way it dealt with her complaint about the behaviour of Councillors.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains:
    1. The Council did not properly consider a petition she raised about parking.
    2. The Council has failed to keep data concerning parking charges.
    3. Councillors were dismissive and uninformed when they responded to her concerns about the petition she raised.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have investigated complaints a) and c). I have not investigated complaint b) as we would expect Mrs X to refer this complaint to the information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  2. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
  3. 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)
  4. 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. As part of this investigation I considered the complaint by Mrs X and the Council’s responses. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X over the telephone. I made enquiries to the Council and considered the information received in response. I sent a draft of this decision to Mrs X and the Council and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s constitution

  1. A Councillor may present a petition at a meeting of the Council. Where more than 25 people sign a petition the Council will refer it to the Cabinet, Cabinet Committee or relevant Scrutiny Committee.
  2. When the Council receives a complaint about a Councillor, its Monitoring Officer will review the complaint and decide whether it merits formal investigation or not.
  3. Where the Monitoring Officer is satisfied there is no breach of the Councillor Code of Conduct, the complaint would not normally be referred for formal investigation.

What happened

  1. In early 2019 Mrs X submitted petitions to the Council opposing the new parking charges in the town centre and for the implementation of two hours free parking to encourage shoppers to visit the town.
  2. On 17 April 2017 a Councillor presented Mrs X’s petitions to the Council at a meeting of the Council. The minutes show the Council referred the petitions to its Cabinet to consider.
  3. On 25 June 2019 the Cabinet considered the petitions at its meeting and decided not to implement the petitions. The minutes show the Cabinet recorded the decision reached but not details of the debate. Before the Cabinet’s decision took effect it was subject to scrutiny by the Place Scrutiny Committee who considered the petitions on 18 July 2019. The minutes from this meeting show the Place Scrutiny Committee referred the petitions back to Cabinet for reconsideration.
  4. The Cabinet met on 17 September 2019 where it reconsidered Mrs X’s petitions. The minutes from this meeting show the Council rejected Mrs X’s petitions due to a significant lack of income potential.
  5. Ms X contacted the Council seeking clarification about the projected lost revenue from parking machines. In early October 2019 the Council sent her copies of the minutes of the meetings held and details of the previous year’s car parking income. The Council said it calculated the loss of revenue from six town centre car parks if two hours of free parking was permitted.
  6. The Council met again on 24 October 2019 where it approved the recommendations from 17 September 2019, including the decision to reject Ms X’s petitions.
  7. Mrs X asked the Council to supply details of the parking revenue from further years. The Council sent her further data in November 2019 but said it did not hold this information prior to 2017.
  8. From September 2019 till November 2019 Ms X also exchanged emails with Councillors about the decision not to approve the petitions and on the future arrangements of parking in the town centre. The result of this communication between Mrs X and a Councillor was the Councillor told her to write to the Council’s Monitoring Officer.
  9. On 20 December 2019 the Council responded to Mrs X’s concerns. The Council set out the timeline of events and meetings where it considered the petitions. The Council told Mrs X it was satisfied the decision to reject the petitions was taken according to the democratic process. The Council also explained why it did not hold data for the parking machines before 2017. The Council said Councillors are subject to a Code of Conduct but failing to provide Mrs X with a comprehensive response would not amount to misconduct resulting in a breach of the Code.
  10. Mrs X responded to the Council on 20 January 2020. She said she believed the Council had not reviewed or debated the petitions properly as the minutes do not contain enough detail. She finds it unacceptable the Council cannot provide the data on parking revenue she sought and found the Councillors she complained about were dismissive and not helpful.
  11. The Council responded to Mrs X on 31 January 2020 and said there was no fault with the way it considered the petitions. The Council said it already explained why it does not hold the data Mrs X asked for. The Council also said the Councillor’s responses to Mrs X did not constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct.

Analysis

  1. When considering complaints, we may not act like an appeal body. We cannot question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made.
  2. After Mrs X’s petitions were submitted the Council referred them to its Cabinet to decide whether to implement them. This was in accordance with its constitution. The Cabinet decided not to implement the petitions in June 2019. Before this decision took effect the Place Scrutiny Committee looked at the petitions and referred them back to the Cabinet for reconsideration. The Cabinet again looked at the petitions in September 2017 and decided not to implement them based on potential lost revenue from parking charges.
  3. While the minutes from the meetings are not particularly detailed and do not outline the debate that Councillors had when considering the petitions, I am satisfied the Council considered the petitions properly. The Council has explained its reasoning to Mrs X and sent her evidence it relied on regarding the potential lost revenue. I accept Mrs X does not agree with the Council’s reasons and wants the Council to evidence parking revenue from previous years however, this was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
  4. In relation to Mrs X’s complaint about the Councillors’ response to her concerns I do not consider the Council at fault for how it handled this. The Monitoring Officer reviewed Mrs X’s concerns and decided they did not merit formal investigation. This was on the basis the Monitoring Officer considered Mrs X’s concerns about the Councillors would not constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct. While Mrs X may disagree with the Monitoring Officers view, I cannot see evidence of fault. The Monitoring Officer followed the procedure in the Council’s constitution.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation and found there was no fault by the Council for the way it considered Mrs X’s petitions about parking and the way it dealt with Mrs X’s complaint about the behaviour of Councillors.

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