Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to consult residents before deciding to reserve six parking bays in his road for charging electric taxis. He also says the Council’s responses to his enquiries have been contradictory. We will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. And it is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council consulted taxi-drivers on a proposal to install electric vehicle (EV) charging points in his road but failed to consult residents. He also says the Council’s responses to his enquiries and complaints have been contradictory.
2. Mr X says pursuing his complaint has been “draining and soul-destroying”. He also says the road where he lives will eventually become a “glorified taxi rank” as more permit only parking spaces on his road will be removed as the demand for electric charging to taxis increases.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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’. 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,
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council,
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. 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)
5. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered:
• the information provided by Mr X
• the Council’s responses to his complaint
• the Committee reports on the Council website; and
• Mr X’s comments on the draft version of this decision

Back to top

What I found

7. The road where Mr X lives is within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). It has on-street parking bays, some of which are permit parking only, two are reserved for disabled parking and the rest are a mixture of pay and display and permit parking spaces. Permits are granted for parking spaces within the CPZ as a whole, they do not give the holder a right to park in a specific street.
8. In 2018 the Council received funding from central Government towards installing four rapid charging hubs with six charging bays per hub for taxis.
9. The Council consulted taxi-drivers on the suitability of several different locations for the hubs. Following the outcome of the survey the Council identified the preferred charging hub location. However, UK Power Network advised there was no room at the preferred location. The Council says it therefore chose the road where Mr X lives as the nearest suitable location.
10. Changes had to be made to the traffic regulation order (TRO), to enable six mixed pay and display/permit parking bays to be reserved for EV charging for taxis.
11. Following the statutory process, the Council wrote to the residents living close to the proposed hub location, including Mr X, advising them of the proposal to reserve six parking bays for taxi charging. Mr X objected to the proposal.
12. Officers prepared a report to the Council’s Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee. This advised that comments about the loss of parking bays from the informal consultation were noted. However, none of the parking spaces are within CPZs which have waiting lists for permits. The report also confirms the Council will display signs encouraging drivers to be respectful of nearby residents in response to concerns about noise.
13. According to the Council’s constitution, if it receives less than six objections to a consultation, officers can determine TRO without referring the matter to committee.
14. In this case there were less than six objections. The Council decided to go ahead with the proposed changes.
15. The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 set out procedures for consultation and dealing with objections to a proposal before a council makes a TRO.
16. In summary, to begin the formal process, a council must:
• publish a ‘notice of proposals’ in a local newspaper;
• make documents on the proposal available for public inspection;
• inform statutory consultees, including the police; and
• give other publicity to the proposal it considers appropriate.
17. A council must publish a notice within 14 days of making a TRO, give adequate publicity to the TRO and write to any objectors outlining the reasons for going ahead with the proposal.
18. The notice must also advise of the right to apply to the High Court within six weeks of the date of the TRO. 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.

Assessment

19. Mr X says the Council was unreasonable in consulting taxi drivers on the proposal to the EV charging points in his road but failing to consult residents. There is no statutory requirement for the Council to carry out an informal consultation. Without such a requirement, we cannot criticise the Council for not doing so.
20. Mr X and those living close to the new charging points were given the opportunity to comment once the locations had been identified. The comments received were noted and reasons given for the decision to proceed with changing general parking spaces to reserved spaces for electric tax charging.
21. Mr X states he could have missed the deadline for objecting because the Council did not tell him. The Council is not at fault for not contacting Mr X personally. It is not obliged to tell residents individually when making changes to a TRO. The relevant notice was displayed, and a notice placed in the local newspaper. Also, Mr X did not miss the deadline, so there is neither fault nor injustice on this point.
22. From the information I have seen the Council followed the statutory procedure for making the TRO. I have seen no evidence of fault in how it did so.
23. Mr X also says the Council’s responses to his enquiries and complaints have been contradictory. He says the Council first told him the taxi drivers had chosen the location of the charging points. Following his challenge, it advised it decided to use the parking bays in the road where he lives because UK Power Network had confirmed there was room at a nearby substation to power the EV points.
24. I understand Mr X believes this is evidence of deceitfulness. However, my view is the Council simply provided further information in response to his enquiries.
25. Mr X also complains the Council has ignored his requests for information. It is reasonable to expect him to refer this matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This is the body with specific powers and expertise to look into complains about access to information.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I will not investigate this complaint because:
• it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council changed the TRO where Mr X lives
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome; and
• it is reasonable for him to refer complains about the Council ignoring requests for information to the ICO

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman