Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the parking permit air quality surcharge the Council imposes on some vehicles. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner and, in any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the parking permit for his vehicle should not be subject to the Council’s air quality surcharge. In particular, he says his vehicle passed the MOT emissions test, and his car emits zero emissions when parked.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

4. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can 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)
5. And we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X.
• information about the Council’s parking permit policy, as available on its website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The 12-month time restriction detailed in paragraph 5 above appears to apply to Mr X’s complaint. I understand he first contacted us about the matter in 2021, and we advised him to complain to the Council first. Yet Mr X did not come back to the Ombudsman until mid-2025. I so no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider this late complaint now.
8. And even if this time restriction did not apply to Mr X’s complaint, the Ombudsman would not investigate it. This is because we are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong, or tell the Council how it should operate its service. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
9. I appreciate Mr X is very unhappy that his vehicle is subject to the air quality parking permit surcharge, but the Council has acted in accordance with the criteria detailed in its parking permit policy. So, we would not start an investigation for that reason too.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have contacted us sooner, and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman