Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council ignored the results of informal and statutory consultation and failed to present sufficient evidence to support the decision it reached on changes to parking permit charges. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council and we would not be able to achieve the outcome Mr B wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained that the Council ignored the results of informal and statutory consultation and failed to present sufficient evidence to support the decision it reached on changes to parking permit charges.

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
• 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)

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr B provided and the information the Council has published online about its decisions.

Back to top

What I found

5. During the informal and statutory consultation periods the Council received many objections to its proposal to implement an emissions-based parking permit charge. The Council had to consider the outcome of its consultations and it has reacted to concerns people had expressed about increased costs in difficult economic times. It agreed to introduce a discount to the new permit charge for the initial period in 2021. We could not therefore say the Council completely ignored what was said by people during the consultation process.
6. It is not our role to re-evaluate the merits of the emissions-based parking permit charge. Mr B strongly disagrees with the charge and wants the Council to scrap it. We have no powers to order a council to reverse its decision. Our role to look at the Council’s decision-making process. While we would expect a report on the proposed implementation of an emissions-based parking permit to summarise the key issues, we do not expect every possible consideration to be included in it. An assessment of whether a proposed measure would, of itself, help meet a council’s stated objectives is not an exact science. The weight to be attached to each key issue, including representations from members of the public affected, was a matter for the Council’s decision-makers. The Council had to consider the matter within the overall context of the London-wide Transport Strategy and Air Quality Action Plan. The Council recognised its parking strategy, including charges, was one of the few means it could use to achieve these targets. There was no requirement on the Council to publish an exit strategy for implementation if pollution levels fell as a result of the changes. For these reasons, it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. In any case, we would not be able to achieve the outcome Mr B wants.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council and we would not be able to achieve the outcome Mr B wants.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman