Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to extend a controlled parking zone. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council's decision not to extend the existing Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in the area where he lives. He says the area suffers from longstanding parking and traffic issues, which have worsened following the introduction of parking controls in nearby roads. Mr X says residents support the introduction of parking controls and he wants the Council to reconsider its decision and extend the CPZ.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council considered Mr X's concerns through its complaints process but did not uphold his complaint. It explained that it had carried out a public consultation on the proposed Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and the results did not show sufficient support for the scheme. The Council said the decision on whether to progress the proposal was ultimately a matter for the Cabinet Member responsible for parking and transport, who decided not to proceed with the extension of the CPZ.
6. 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.
7. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council considered the proposal in accordance with its parking scheme process. It consulted residents, considered the responses received and reached a decision through the appropriate decision-maker in line with its policy. This was a decision it was entitled to make. While I understand Mr X disagrees with the decision, disagreement alone is not evidence of fault.
8. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman