Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a surcharge the Council places on the cost of parking permits for diesel vehicles. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the Council should not charge him more for a parking permit because his diesel car is compliant with the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). He says he should not be charged the same amount as other diesel vehicles which are not ULEZ compliant.

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 Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and information about the permits. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X has a vehicle which is ULEZ compliant. He complained to the Council because he was charged a surcharge because the car is diesel. He disagrees with the charge because the car is compliant.
6. The Council said it charges a £100 annual surcharge on permits for diesel vehicles. It explained this was agreed by the Council Cabinet in 2020. It said that as part of the decision making process the Council considered exempting compliant vehicles from the surcharge but decided not to. Before making the decision, the Council considered reports that said that even compliant vehicles emit high levels of pollutants and some of the emission testing can be unreliable.
7. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I can understand why Mr X disagrees with the surcharge. However, it was a decision made by the Council, following a period of consultation and consideration of different options, and it is not our role to question that decision. It is a policy decision the Council was entitled to make. Mr X disagrees with the decision but that disagreement does not mean the Council has done anything wrong.
8. It is not our role to make policy decisions or tell a council it must change a policy. The Council applied the policy correctly to Mr X’s permit application and explained why he is not exempt from the charge. The Council applied the policy correctly and there are no grounds for us to intervene. If Mr X thinks ULEZ vehicles should be exempt he could raise it is an issue with councillors. But, it would be for the Council, not us, to decide whether to change the surcharge policy.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman