Summary: Mr X complains the Council changed the parking permit scheme where he lives without proper consultation. We find no fault with the way the Council carried out changes to the scheme.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council changed the parking permit scheme where he lives without proper consultation.
2. The permits are now digital and vehicle specific, whereas before they were on paper and property based.
3. Mr X would like the Council to go back to supplying two permits free of charge and making them property based and not vehicle specific, and giving paper permits rather than digital ones.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

7. I have considered:
• The information provided by Mr X and in discussion with him;
• The Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided; and
• Relevant law and guidance.
8. Mr X 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

Relevant law and guidance

Traffic Regulation Orders

9. 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. This may include directly telling people affected, but this is not a legal requirement.
10. Councils will usually carry out some informal consultation in the area before deciding whether to go through the formal process of making a TRO. If they do so, they should take the results into account in determining the proposals, but the consultation is not a binding referendum.
11. Councils must consider any objections they receive to the notice, however, the decision to make a TRO ultimately rests with the Council.

What happened

12. Mr X 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.
13. In 2019 the Council considered making changes to deal with issues caused by students and university staff parking in the area.
14. In 2021 the Council decided to re-define the Residents Priority parking area and 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.
15. Before the change Mr X said he could get two free parking permits for his address. Now he has to pay for the second permit. Further the permits were on paper and were property based. Now they are vehicle specific and digital.
16. Mr X complains the Council failed to carry out any consultation before this changed, and says only council tax payers should be able to apply for permits.
17. Mr X also says it is harder to put the permit in a different vehicle now. Before you could move the paper permit from one vehicle to another, but now you have to change it online. He says this makes it difficult when he is away and his wife needs to use the parking space for visitors.
18. The Council said in its response to us the original scheme only allowed one free permit, and when the scheme was extended Parking Services made the decision to continue to allow one free permit.

Analysis

19. The parking scheme says to get a parking permit you have to be located within the eligible area and pay council tax. So the permits are still property based, but now vehicle specific.
20. Mr X says before the changes were introduced you could get two free permits. The Council say it was only ever one free permit.
21. In the stage two complaint response to Mr X, the Council say it was only possible to extend the parking scheme with one free permit to be made available for each property, due to funding given by the university. It also says “there are a few homes that have been issued with more than one permit and they can still be used until their expiry date”.
22. Therefore I am of the opinion that before the changes happened, Mr X could have two free parking permits. However, I cannot find fault with the Council’s decision to change this to one free parking permit.
23. Although the permits are vehicle specific, they can be swapped online in the Council’s online Permit Portal to allow them to be used in different vehicles.
24. Mr X says he was not consulted on the proposed TRO. The Council says it sent out letters to residents and occupiers in February 2021 with details of the proposals. It has sent evidence of holding consultations. The Council told me “A lot of consultation was held with residence associations for people to feed their views in through this route. Residence associations were strongly in favour of the scheme being implemented to address the parking issues related to the University”.
25. I have no reason not to believe what Mr X says, but when considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened. I consider it most likely the Council delivered letters to all affected properties as this is its normal practice. I cannot say why Mr X did not receive the letter.
26. However, even if the Council had missed Mr X’s property this would not be fault, as it is not legally required to write to all residents.
27. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the Council made.
28. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding to change the parking permit scheme. There is no fault in how it took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
29. In making its decision, the Council took account of the relevant guidance, information from the Consultation, and its own policies. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I find no fault in the way the Council took the decision to change the parking permit scheme.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman