Summary: We will not investigate most of Mr X and Ms Y’s complaint about the Council’s decision-making regarding parking charges because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate the Council’s original consultation about the charges because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Ms Y complained about charges for parking provision in their area set by the Council. Mr X and Ms Y were concerned the Council failed to conduct appropriate consultations with residents and ultimately set rates which were uncompetitive with other comparable villages.
2. Mr X and Ms Y said the matter caused them distress and uncertainty.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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

Background

6. The Council historically owned garages on the site in question. In 2022 the garages were significantly damaged by a storm. The Council removed the garages and replaced them with marked bays which are reserved and locked. The bays are licenced on a first come, first served basis.
7. In November 2024 the Council originally proposed a charge of £2,600 per annum per space. In its complaint response to Mr X and Ms Y, the Council accepted its public consultation regarding the initial proposed charge was not robust. The fee was later reduced to £1,250 following additional discussion with residents and councillors.

Analysis

8. We will not investigate this complaint.
9. Although Mr X and Ms Y are concerned about the methodology used to determine the final charge the Council is under no obligation to provide parking for local residents at a specific or discounted rate. The Council set the rate it thinks is competitive, and it is up to residents whether to accept the charges and pay for the service or not.
10. 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.
11. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making regarding the final £1,250 fee for parking to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
12. Any injustice caused by the original lack of consultation when the Council proposed a fee of £2,600 is not significant enough to warrant an investigation, particularly because the Council later engaged in additional consultations which resulted in a lower price being set.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate most of Mr X and Ms Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault for part of the complaint. We will not investigate the remainder because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman