Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to withdraw a parking permit zone and the Council’s failure to respond to his correspondence about the matter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr x complains about the Council’s decision to withdraw a parking permit zone. He says the Council failed to respond to his correspondence about the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In 2015, the Council suspended a residential parking scheme that operated on a street near to Mr X. This was due to the parking scheme being incompatible with several Orders the Council introduced in 2015.
7. In 2022, the Council carried out informal consultation to gather views on a proposal to introduce a permit parking area. The Council said that it received 26 responses, 24 of which objected to the permit scheme. As a result, the Council decided to move forward to formal consultation to remove the parking restrictions, allowing for unrestricted parking for most of the area. The Council wrote to Mr X in November 2022 detailing this.
8. The Council completed formal consultation in January 2023. The Council provided evidence of the advert placed in the newspaper and confirmed all documents were made available to view on its website, its offices, and at the city council. Notices were also placed on site and consultation letters sent to residents in January 2023. The Council said it received 21 objections, which led to an amendment to the proposal.
9. The Council confirmed the amendment notice was advertised in June 2023 and all documents made available to view. Notices were also placed on site. The Council said no responses were received.
10. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. The evidence shows the Council followed the correct process to implement the traffic regulation order to remove the parking restrictions, including completing informal and formal consultations with residents. We could not find fault with the Council’s decision just because Mr X does not agree with the decision.
11. Mr X says the Council has failed to reply to his correspondence about the matter since receiving the letter detailing the Council’s intentions in November 2022. The Council provided evidence it responded to Mr X to confirm that it completed informal consultation to gather opinion regarding the formalisation of the permit scheme with the introduction of a permit parking area. The Council noted that Mr X would have the opportunity to make comments on its proposals when it proceeds with the formal consultations.
12. An investigation is therefore not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council had provided Mr X with information as to its rationale for not proceeding with introducing a permit parking area and advised him that he can make further representations during the formal consultation stage. I am satisfied it was reasonable for Mr X to have raised any comments or objections under this process, rather than expect the Council to engage with him further outside this process.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman