Summary: Mr X complained about a resident’s parking scheme which the Council sets charges for based on vehicle emissions. The Council is not at fault. It administers the scheme in line with a 2018 traffic regulation order and the fees are agreed and approved each year by the relevant Council committee.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about a resident’s parking scheme (the scheme) which the Council charges for based on a vehicle’s carbon dioxide emissions. Mr X said the Council has increased the charges since the scheme’s introduction unfairly and disproportionately on a yearly basis.
2. Mr X says the charges have reached a point where they are unsustainable and are causing him financial hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. The Council introduced the resident’s parking scheme in 2018. The procedures for creating a TRO are in the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. Council’s often carry out some consultation before deciding whether to make a traffic order and the procedure allows for a challenge to the high court.
7. Any concerns or issues with how the Council brought in the resident’s parking scheme in 2018 are out of time as it was reasonable for Mr X to make a complaint about this much earlier.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided.
9. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
10. Mr X and the Council have an opportunity to comment on this draft decision. I will consider comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s resident parking scheme

11. The Council’s website outlines charges for parking permits for someone who lives in a controlled parking zone. The cost of the parking permit depends on
• Where the resident lives and which scheme applies,
• Vehicle emissions, and
• The duration of the permit applied for.
12. The Council classes vehicles as
• Low emission
• Standard emission, and
• High emission.
13. The resident parking permit fees are set each year and are agreed by the members at the relevant Committee and Budget Council meeting. The Council publishes the reports on its website which outline the reasoning behind charges.
14. Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 outlines how councils can use surplus funds from parking schemes. This includes highway or road improvement, environmental improvement and public transport services. The Council’s website also explains how it uses and spends funds obtained from its parking schemes.

Case Law

15. In R (Attfield) v London Borough of Barnet [2013] EWHC 2089 (Admin)), the court held that the Council’s purpose in increasing the charges for resident parking permits and visitor vouchers was to generate additional income to meet projected expenditure for road maintenance and improvement, concessionary fares and other road-transport costs and reduce the need to raise income from other sources, such as fines, charges and council tax and that this was unlawful.

What happened

16. Mr X lives within the Council’s area and his street is covered by the residents’ parking scheme which came into force in 2018. Mr X’s vehicle is classed in the ‘high emission’ bracket and therefore his residents’ permit fee is high.
17. During 2022 Mr X wrote to the Council after his permit fee for the year had increased. Mr X said he felt the increase in fees was substantial and he could not understand how the Council could justify such an increase. Mr X said his fee was at a 75% surcharge because his vehicle was ‘high emission’. Mr X asked for more information on how the Council used the funding. He was also unhappy that visitors to the Council’s area did not face charges but contributed to the poor air quality. Mr X pointed out his vehicle did not emit carbon dioxide when it was parked and therefore the fees were unfair.
18. The Council replied to Mr X and explained the higher emission charge was introduced in 2018 and was based on the amount of carbon dioxide a vehicle emits. The Council acknowledged the charges for owners of high emission vehicles were significant but said it reflected the poor air quality in its area. The Council said it used the funds raised for transport projects.
19. In 2023 Mr X attended the Council’s full committee meeting and raised his concerns about the scheme, specifically the substantial increase in fees and the absence of data to support the increase. Mr X questioned the lawfulness of the fee increases.
20. Mr X complained to the Council about the matter. He complained about the scheme charging for his vehicle when it was parked and therefore not emitting carbon dioxide. Mr X said it was unlawful to do so. Mr X wanted the Council to review the scheme and refund all of his permit fees.
21. The Council declined to investigate Mr X’s complaint on the basis it was about decision taken by the Full Council and/or a committee or elected members.
22. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us. He reiterated his concerns about fees based on emissions. He also raised the case law outlined in paragraph 15 and said he believed the Council was using funds for expenditure contrary to that case law.

My findings

23. Mr X’s substantive complaint is about the Council’s continued decision to apply charges for residents parking permits based on carbon dioxide emissions. As explained above, the Council introduced the scheme in 2018 and the order outlines that charges will be made based on vehicle emissions. Any objections or representations should have been made at the time. As the statutory order is valid and in place there is no fault in the Council deciding to charge for resident parking permits based on vehicle emissions.
24. It is also for the Council to decide how it sets its fees each year and whether to implement increases or decreases. The decision to increase fees and charges is discussed and approved at relevant committee meetings of which the minutes and reports are then published on the Council’s website. Mr X disagrees with the increase in fees but there is no fault in the decision to do so.
25. I have considered the case law set out in paragraph 15. The court’s key finding was the council’s purpose and objective in that case was to increase charges for resident parking permits and visitor vouchers to generate additional income. There is no evidence that the Council in this case has set out with the purpose of generating funds for specific road projects. Relevant law allows councils to use surplus funds on transport improvements and the Council outlines how it uses this surplus on its website. This is confined to spending on public transport, air quality and environmental improvements. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council has decided to spend surplus funds from the residents’ parking scheme.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I completed this investigation as I have found no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman