Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking permit scheme because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, the Council provided a satisfactory response regarding the complaint handling.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about an unnecessary parking permit scheme which forces her to pay to park outside her home. She also says the Council delayed responding to her complaint.

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, or
• if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and information about the parking permit scheme. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council introduced a parking permit scheme in 2019 after a period of consultation with residents. The majority of residents who responded supported a permit scheme. The scheme was approved by the Council’s cabinet planning and parking panel.
5. Ms X lives in a road where the permit scheme is in operation. Ms X says she should not have to pay to park outside her home or pay for visitor permits. She says the scheme is unnecessary and unreasonable and she reports that other residents share her views. Ms X suggested changes to the scheme which she says would be less restrictive but still resolve any parking issues.
6. In response to her complaint the Council said the scheme had been in place since 2019 and was introduced following a period of consultation and a decision by the cabinet. The Council explained what had happened prior to the introduction of the scheme and said it had followed the correct process. The Council said it had not received comments from other residents expressing the same views as Ms X but it invited her to lodge a request for a new consultation; the Council would then consider whether to carry out a review.
7. The Council apologised for the delayed complaint response and said it had made changes to its complaint handling process.
8. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I have considered the documents relating to the 2019 decision and can confirm the Council followed the correct process. I appreciate Ms X disagrees with the scheme but that disagreement does not mean the Council has done anything wrong and the Council is not required to adopt every suggestion made by a resident.
9. In addition, the Council could not just adopt Ms X’s suggestion because it would be required to do another consultation and carry out a formal process, which is a long and expensive process; and there is no guarantee the majority of residents would support Ms X’s proposal or want to change the scheme. The Council acted correctly by explaining the background to the scheme and inviting Ms X to lodge a request for a consultation.
10. We have no power to change a parking scheme or tell a council it must make changes. The Council decided to introduce the scheme and it would be for the Council to decide whether to make any changes. We are not an appeal body and we cannot intervene just because a council has a policy or procedure that someone disagrees with. Ms X could, however, speak to her local councillors to explain her concerns and suggest changes. But, it would be for the Council to decide how to respond.
11. There was a significant delay by the Council in responding to Ms X’s complaint. This does not need an investigation because the Council apologised and made changes to its complaints handling process. This is a satisfactory response.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the Council has provided a satisfactory response regarding the complaint handling.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman