Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to a complaint about parking charges. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains of poor complaint handling regarding a complaint he made about parking charges. He wants the Council to uphold his complaint and apologise for the way it responded.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X complained to the Council about a mandatory 10p charge which is added to the parking charge when people pay through a parking payment app or a payment shop.
5. In response the Council said there are other parking options which do not require use of the app or the shop. It also said the signs are compliant and the charge is made by the app provider.
6. The Council did not uphold the complaint but offered Mr X a free parking session in recognition of his dissatisfaction with the 10p charge. It said it was planning to introduce other payment options in 2025 which may reduce or eliminate additional charges. It also said it would recommend removal of the fee for people paying in the shop rather than using the app.
7. Mr X says the Council initially failed to treat his complaint as a complaint and he had to escalate to get it treated as such. Mr X says the final outcome is acceptable but he disagrees with the Council’s decision not to uphold the complaint. Mr X says the complaint handling caused distress and wasted his time. He wants the Council to apologise and uphold the complaint.
8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice. The Council provided an appropriate response in relation to the parking issue. It has proposed actions which resolves any personal injustice to Mr X (the 10p charge) and proposes actions which will be beneficial to others. There is nothing in the complaint response which suggests we need to start an investigation and we do not investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive matter. Mr X has referred to distress and the use of his time but, while important to Mr X, this does not represent a level of injustice which requires an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman