Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to place the complainant on a waiting list for a parking permit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council will not give him a parking permit. He wants the Council to review the system and/or give him discounted parking.

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 an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mr X lives in the city centre. He applied for a parking permit. The Council placed Mr X on a waiting list because it did not have any permits to immediately offer. The permit application form explains people may be placed on a waiting list. The Council offered a space in a car park but it costs £2000 a year. The cost of a permit is £50.
5. Mr X complained to the Council. In response the Council explained that in the city centre 50% of the parking spaces are reserved for residents. It explained it regularly reviews the parking allocation and has to manage the road space for everyone, not just for residents. It agreed that during 2020 there were empty parking spaces but said that was due to the impact of lockdown and COVID-19. It said that any changes to the scheme must be based on long-term use. The Council said it will notify Mr X if a permit becomes available or changes are made to the scheme. The Council told me there are 20 people on the waiting list and Mr X is 14th on the list.
6. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s response. He has had to rent a parking place which is more expensive that buying a permit. He says there are many empty parking places in the surrounding streets. Mr X does not think residents should pay the same parking fees as visitors and there are car parks visitors could use rather than on-street parking. He says the Council should review the division between residential and visitor parking or offer him alternative parking at a discounted rate. Mr X is annoyed at seeing empty spaces when he has to pay a high price to park.

Assessment

7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council’s policy is to restrict the number of resident permits in the city centre so parking is available for visitors. This means parking spaces may be empty, especially due to COVID-19, as the number of visitors will fluctuate. The Council will offer Mr X a permit once he reaches the top of the waiting list. But, it is impossible to know how long this will take. Mr X may disagree with way the Council operates the system but that is not an indication of fault.
8. Mr X says the Council should make a larger proportion of the spaces available for residents. This, however, is a decision for the Council, not us, to make. Mr X would need to lobby his local councillors for a change in the policy. He could also make submissions about the pricing policy and whether greater emphasis should be placed on the use of car parks, rather than on-street parking, for visitors. But, these are all issues for the Council to decide.
9. Mr X also says the Council should offer him discounted parking. But, again, it would be for the Council to decide whether it wants to offer discounted parking to residents.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman