Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking restrictions. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is looking for.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is not properly taking account of its duties under the Equality Act 2010. He says the parking restrictions outside his place of worship, due to a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), have an adverse and unfair impact on him and his community. Mr X also says the Council failed to meet its 20-working-day time limit for responding to his complaint at stage two of its procedures.
2. Mr X wants the Council to be directed to amend the restrictions to accommodate elderly and vulnerable worshippers.

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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))
4. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
5. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My Assessment

7. Mr X complained the Council has not properly considered its Equality Act duty because of the unfair impact that parking restrictions have on his community. Mr X said this is evident when compared to other areas, near different places of worship, where there are no restrictions.
8. The Council replied to Mr X’s complaint and set out that the CPZ has been in force for over 18 years. It also explained that it was not intending to change the restrictions because of its need to balance the parking needs of residents and traffic demand.
9. It explained the difference between worship on different days, meaning in some instances there was no restriction needed. Finally, it explained it operates a blue badge scheme to benefit those who have impairments, that would enable them to access other facilities where needed.
10. We cannot say a Council has breached the Equality Act, but we may be critical of an organisation if it does not show how it has considered its duty. In considering Mr X’s complaint, the evidence shows the Council has considered its duty here.
11. Nor can we direct the Council to amend a CPZ or provide Mr X with the outcome he is seeking. These are matters which are more appropriate to be addressed by locally elected representatives.
12. Therefore, I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, including his complaint about complaint handling. This is because I cannot achieve what he is looking for and we do not usually look at complaint handling in isolation where we decide not to look at the main issue.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome he is looking for.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman