Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to close a parking entrance to a car park without warning. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. In addition, the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to close a parking entrance to a car park without warning. He says this decision will affect his bed and breakfast business.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to close an entrance to a car park. This entrance was on Road B. He says his bed and breakfast (B&B) guests use this entrance and this will negatively impact his business.
7. The Council explained the main vehicle entrance for the car park has always been via Road C. However, due to development works to build a new hotel, there was no access to the car park via Road C. Therefore, the Council opened a temporary access point to the car park via Road B. The Council confirmed that exclusive parking for the hotel guest was always part of the redevelopment project and formed part of the planning application.
8. In 2024, with completion of the development of the hotel, then Council published a press release stating the temporary entrance on Road B would be closed and that access to the car park would again be via Road C.
9. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council accepted it would have been beneficial for it to provide updates to local businesses, including updating them on the Council’s intention to close the Road B entrance permanently. The Council apologised for the lack of communication.
10. The Council offered two solutions to Mr X and the rest of the B&B business owners. The Council said it could either:
• Set up a dedicated reserved bay area in the car park specifically for B&B owners. Each bay would be supplied at the annual permit cost for two years, after which the Council would incrementally bring the costs in line with the other reserved bays in the car park.
• Continue to issue annual permits with a 25% discount for two years.
11. The Council clarified that it had not stopped vehicle access to the car park, nor stopped B&B guests from parking in the car park. The Council also confirmed it could not reopen the vehicular entrance via Road B as that area was designated parking for exclusive use for the hotel guests. The Council clarified that pedestrian access via Road B was still available.
12. An investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. The Council has explained the reasons for why the entrance on Road B was closed and why it cannot be reopened. The Council has provided evidence to support its position. As there is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to close the entrance, we could not find fault with the decision itself.
13. I am also satisfied the alleged fault has not caused Mr X any significant injustice. This is because Mr X’s guests can still use the car park and the entrance at Road B is still open for pedestrian use. Further, the Council has offered two solutions to Mr X to resolve the matter. It is open to Mr X to accept one of these options.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. In addition, the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman