Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the lack of suitable disabled parking spaces within a reasonable distance of the Council’s City Hall. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s response to the parking concerns he raised when he was unable to park in the Council-controlled car park he had previously used when visiting City Hall and instead parked at a multi-storey car park where he was unable to use his blue badge and was charged £4.80.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X is a wheelchair user who has to transfer directly from the driver’s position into his wheelchair. Previously on visiting City Hall, he used a nearby council-controlled car park for which no change for blue badge holders was made and which he could safely use.
6. This car park closed to allow redevelopment in the area and the next time he visited City Hall he used a multi-story car park which while it has disabled bays, charges all users and Mr X had to pay a parking fee.
7. Mr X complained to the Council about this. It responded in some detail to the points he raised and set out the alternative parking options available both on street and off street, chargeable and free.
8. Mr X complains the Council’s response made too much reference in its communications to residents of Sunderland when he is not one, that it did not consider his specific requirements for off street parking and referred to him as “choosing” to use off street parking rather than recognising it is a necessity. He seeks a change in Council policy and compensation.
9. We do not investigate every complaint we receive. The Council responded appropriately to Mr X’s concerns and while the options available may not suit him as well as his previous parking arrangements when visiting City Hall, we will not investigate where we are unlikely to find sufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman