Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to make changes to its parking permit charges. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to make changes to its parking permits charges which means he needs to pay for a permit to park outside his home. Mr X says it is not reasonable or justified to charge single car households for a parking permit as they do not significantly impact traffic flow. He says the Council has not provided reasonable answers to his questions and he is also concerned there is no clear upper limit stated for parking permit fees.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about the matter set out in paragraph one, above.
7. The Council decides fees and charges as part of its annual budget setting process. This decision was discussed and approved at Cabinet and later approved at the Full Council Meeting. This follows the Council’s decision making process.
8. The Council provided Mr X with a link to the relevant Cabinet meeting minutes which explain its decision and reasons. The minutes state the decision to introduce a charge for a first resident parking permit was made in order to cover the cost of administration and enforcement of controlled resident parking areas. The Council told Mr X the fees are set annually by the Full Council.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because, whilst I acknowledge Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decision to decide if it is wrong. Instead, we look at the processes it followed in making its decision. The Council followed its decision making process via Cabinet and Full Council in reaching its decision as part of its budget setting process. There is no sign of fault in the process in which the decision was made and so we cannot question whether its decision is right or wrong even though Mr X disagrees with it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman