Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to cancel a proposed car park following years of consideration since it was approved in 2021. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision to withdraw the project. We will not exercise discretion to consider the matters which took place more than 12 months before Mr X complained to us. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to withdraw a scheme to create a car park in his area which was approved in 2021. He says there has been delay, lack of communication and an incorrect decision to end the scheme on cost and environmental grounds. He says failure to provide the car park will result in continuing parking and access issues near his home.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s responses.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council has cancelled a proposed car parking scheme for his area which was first approved for construction in 2021. The Council decided to abandon the scheme in 2023 but then re-instated it. He says there was no planning application until 2025 and that delays and lack of communication have caused frustration for locals. He believes the local community will continue to experience parking congestion and access problems without the car park being completed.
7. We will not exercise discretion to investigate the events which took place more than 12 months before Mr X complained to us. It was reasonable for him to complaint to us ant an earlier time if he believed there was fault in the development of the scheme. I have seen no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.
8. The Council decided to discontinue the car park scheme in 2026 due to high costs involved and environmental and other issues raised by the planning process. The Council is the highway authority and has discretion about what public parking facilities it should provide. The decision to approve and abandon the scheme are ones which the council has powers to decide and we cannot question the merits of these decisions or how to use public resources.
9. It is not possible to determine if the completion of the car park would have brought about an improvement in parking issues as Mr X believes as this may have required changes to existing on-street parking restrictions as well.
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, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to cancel a proposed car park following years of consideration since it was approved in 2021. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision to withdraw the project. We will not exercise discretion to consider the matters which took place more than 12 months before Mr X complained to us. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman