Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Controlled Parking Zone. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council introduced a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) which excluded his road. He says people are now parking on his road making it difficult to find parking near his home. He says the Council has refused to exercise its discretion to make him eligible for a parking permit in a nearby CPZ. Mr X says this has caused him stress and made it difficult for people to park when visiting him. He wants the Council to provide him with an alternative to park near his home and confirm when the CPZ consultation will take place for his road.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council planned to impose a CPZ in two phases. Phase one did not include Mr X’s road. The Council planned to include it in phase two.
7. Mr X complained the way the Council imposed the CPZ had caused non-permit holders to park on his road. This made it difficult for him to find parking near his home. The Council explained to Mr X, it could not extend the CPZ without restarting a lengthy legal process.
8. The Council published statutory notices for phase one. During that time Mr X did not present any objections. Mr X says residents were not properly consulted about phase one. The Council explained to Mr X, even if he had raised objections, it was unlikely it would have changed the outcome. Therefore, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how the Council consulted residents.
9. Mr X wanted to know when the CPZ consultation would take place for his road. The Council explained to Mr X, it completed the first stage of phase two later than planned. This caused delays to the planned consultation, and it had scheduled it for the summer.
10. Mr X complained the Council failed to exercise its discretion to enable him to apply for a residential parking permit so he could park within the neighbouring CPZ.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
12. The Council explained to Mr X it could not issue a temporary parking permit for him to park in another CPZ, as this was outside its policy. Therefore, Mr X was ineligible for a parking permit.
13. The Council has no legal duty to provide parking for residents. The Council explained to Mr X, the alternatives for any mobility issues. It also provided him with information on surrounding roads he could park on without a permit. I am satisfied the Council considered Mr X’s concerns. It has followed its policy and eligibility criteria for issuing parking permits. Therefore, I am unlikely to find fault in how it made its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman