Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to implement a vehicle size surcharge. Mr X has not suffered significant personal injustice and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council unfairly implemented a new vehicle size surcharge without any consultation or information to the general public.
2. Mr X said this means this will incur additional costs to some people. He wanted the Council to remove the surcharge.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

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

6. Mr X complained the Council had introduced a new £7 vehicle surcharge based on the length of a vehicle. He said this was unfair as most cars would be required to pay the surcharge.
7. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It explained:
• the surcharge is not a flat £7 fee. It is a percentage-based surcharge which is applied to the base parking permit price; and
• as a blue badge holder, Mr X does not need to purchase a parking permit and may park for free in resident, pay-by-phone, and non-dedicated disabled bays anywhere in the area.
8. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the Council.
9. This means we will normally only consider a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the Council.
10. We will not normally investigate a complaint where:
• The alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
• The complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider political or community campaign. In these cases, their concerns may be better addressed to their local councillor or MP rather than the Ombudsman.
• The complainant is not the person primarily affected and is complaining about a secondary impact on them, rather than acting on behalf of the person directly affected.
11. Mr X also complained the surcharge was introduced without consultation or information to the general public.
12. The Council’s website shows there was a consultation about the surcharge in October 2024. It was based on proposals which were discussed with local residents and businesses.
13. The Council published the consultation details, proposals and outcomes, which are still accessible on its website. These confirmed that the surcharge was going to be implemented.
14. We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X has not suffered significant personal injustice as he is unaffected by the surcharge. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating as the Council consulted the local residents and businesses and published the outcome of the consultation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X has not suffered significant personal injustice and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman