Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint, brought by Mr X, about the Council overcharging her to use one of its car parks, and about the wording of the previous parking tariff signs. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X is the wife of Mr X, who has brought the complaint on her behalf. Mrs X uses a Council-run car park. Mr X complains the Council:
1. overcharged Mrs X by adding an evening charge to a 24-hour parking rate;
2. failed to display signs in the car park which correctly explained the full parking tariff.
2. Mr X says Mrs X was required to comply with an unlawful parking charge. He says she lost money due to the overpayments she had to make.

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:

• 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

4. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council replaced the car park’s signs about which Mrs X has complained in 2025. This indicates the Council recognised the signs needed to be clearer in how they described its intended parking tariffs.
6. But even if there was fault by the Council here, we will not investigate. The difference in parking charge between what Mrs X may have expected to pay, and what she was usually charged, was £2 per visit. The complaint information from Mr X shows Mrs X returned to the same car park after he had raised the matter with the Council as an overcharging issue, and before officers changed the signs. On at least two of those visits, the Council’s system did not add the £2 sum to her tariff when she left the car park.
7. We recognise Mrs X may prefer to use the Council’s car park, but it was her decision to do so. If she had significant concerns about the amount charged, she may have used a different car park after she had been charged it the first time. That would have prevented her from being charged the £2 sum, which she considered an overcharge, on any more occasions. Even if Mrs X had no other parking options, the parking charge sums involved would not be sufficient to justify us investigating. There is insufficient significant injustice to Mrs X stemming from the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused by the matters complained of to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman