Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the treatment of Mr X at a Council owned car park. This is because we are unlikely to add anything further to the Council’s response. We are also unlikely to find fault and Mr X has not suffered significant injustice. Mr X’s complaint about a possible crime is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains he was detained in a Council owned car park, which resulted in him having to call the police. Mr X says he is disabled and unable to walk long distances. This meant he could not validate his ticket before trying to exit the car park. Mr X says he drove up to the barrier and asked the attendant to validate his ticket. He says the attendant was rude and dismissive of his ability to walk. Mr X says the Council has not listened to his complaint and discriminated against him. Mr X also complains the Council has refused his Subject Access Request (SAR) for CCTV and Bodycam footage.
2. Mr X says he can no longer park in the car park because of the impact the experience has had on him mentally. Mr X wants the Council to sack the car park attendant, change the process for blue badge holders to validate their parking tickets and provide him with compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

4. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X says he was illegally detained in the car park. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about possible crimes. Instead, this will be a matter for the police. Therefore, I cannot investigate this part of the complaint.
8. Mr X complained to the Council about the conduct of the parking attendant it employed at the car park. The Council properly considered Mr X’s concerns. It completed an internal review with the member of staff, and suitable training and measures were put in place. I will not investigate this part of the complaint as I am unlikely to add anything further to the Council’s response.
9. Mr X complained the Council discriminated against him and said the process for validating his parking ticket as a blue badge holder did not consider his disability. It is not our role to decide if a council has discriminated against someone or if the Equality Act has been breached. These are legal matters only the courts can determine.
10. The Council explained to Mr X for safety and traffic management reasons; cars must be parked in designated bays during ticket validation and cannot be left near the exit barrier. The Council properly considered Mr X’s concerns around walking longer distances and said it would continue to review its processes to ensure car parks are as accessible and practical as possible while maintaining site safety. I do not consider there is sufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation this matter.
11. Mr X says the Council ignored his Subject Access Request (SAR) to get CCTV and Bodycam footage of the incident. I have seen evidence the SAR was actioned by the Council. There was a delay of three days past the deadline for which the Council apologised to Mr X. I will not investigate this part of the complaint as any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Mr X can complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office if he is unhappy with how the Council dealt with his request for information as it is the appropriate body to deal with these matters.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response. We are also unlikely to find fault and Mr X has not suffered significant injustice in relation to how the Council dealt with his information request. Mr X’s complaint about a possible crime is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman