Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council removing four resident parking bays, replacing them with electric vehicle charging bays. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and it is not proportionate to investigate the complaints handling issue on its own.

The complaint

1. X complains the Council removed four resident parking bays, replacing them with electric vehicle charging (EVC) bays. X said the Council did this without meaningful consultation or transparency. X also complains about the Council’s complaints responses and said they have received five parking charge notices (PCNs) within two years. X said the Council pursued enforcement action for the PCNs rigidly and without discretion.
2. X said this has caused them significant distress and said the Council failed to consider their vulnerabilities. X said the parking pressures had led to hostility in the area.
3. X wanted the Council to review its decision and correct procedural failures. X also wanted the Council to respond to their freedom of information request.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
7. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. In 2024, X complained to the Council about limited parking outside their property. The Council said its only option was to arrange patrols for illegally parked vehicles. Mid- 2025, X complained again after the Council installed EVC bays. X later complained to us. X said the Council failed to consult residents properly.
11. In response to X’s complaint, the Council said it had advertised the proposed EVC bays in November 2024, including through on-street notices and letter drops. It said it had considered equality impacts and concluded the scheme would not cause significant adverse effects for people with protected characteristics. It said this provided an equal opportunity for people to benefit as demand for EV ownership increased. It also said the bays operated only during the day and were available for general parking overnight.
12. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision. Although X says they were unaware of the consultation, the Council followed the proper process and considered their concerns, including equality issues.
13. We normally expect people to use their statutory right of appeal where one exists. It was open to X to appeal the PCNs to London Tribunals, and there is not a good reason for us to consider the PCNs instead. Where the PCN remains payable as there has not been a successful appeal, the Council is entitled to pursue payment through use of enforcement agents.
14. While X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her complaint it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about.  We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman