The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained the Council acted unfairly by delaying implementing a new parking scheme in the area where he lives. Mr X said currently some residents are required to pay for resident parking permits where others in the same area get them for free. I ended my investigation. This is because the alleged faults have not caused Mr X a significant personal injustice.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council has acted unfairly with its failure and delay in implementing a new parking scheme in the area where he lives. Mr X said as a result he continues to pay for a parking permit where other residents in the same area have had free parking for the last two years.
Mr X wants the Council to treat all residents fairly and implement the delayed parking scheme.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided.
I considered the complaint correspondence between the Council and Mr X.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on this draft decision. I considered comments before making a final decision.
What I found
What happened Mr X lives in a town centre on a street that has little or no off-road or allocated parking for residents. This is the same for most of the residents who live near the town centre. Therefore, any residents who want to park their vehicle must purchase resident parking permits. These permits are in the form of on street or off-street permits. On-street permits allow residents to park in waiting bays and designated bays and off-street permits allow the use of designated off street car parks. Addresses are allocated into zones which dictate which areas residents can park in.
Mr X’s address is in a zone where he qualifies to apply for on-street parking permits which each cost him £50 a year. Some of the resident’s further down Mr X’s street live in properties which qualify to apply for off-street parking which has historically cost £75 per year.
In 2018 the Council decided to increase the price of its permits as part of the planned roll-out of a new parking strategy, which it first announced in 2015. This increased the price of off-street parking permits from £75 to £448 per year. However, following complaints from residents about the price increase the Council decided to keep the price of an off-street permit at £75 on a temporary basis, pending the implementation of the new strategy.
Mr X said this arrangement morphed into free parking for these residents which he says is not fair on others, including him, who are still required to pay for their on-street permits. Mr X says those who use off-street permits have not paid for parking since early 2020 and he wants the Council to implement the delayed new parking strategy which he says will address this issue.
Mr X complained to the Council about the matter in 2021. The Council said it was progressing the new parking strategy which it said would address the inequality in the parking charges. It said the consultation on the strategy has been delayed, in part because of pressures on staff and other COVID-19 related issues. The Council said it retained the right to make parking concessions and did so in light of feedback from customers over the proposed price increase.
Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us.
The Council told us the delay in rolling out strategy was in part down to diverting teams for social distancing work over the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. It had now put in place a lead officer who will start rolling out the parking strategy in due course.
My findings
The Ombudsman must be satisfied the matters complained of cause significant personal injustice to the person or people complaining. The Council’s new parking strategy is delayed and it has explained why to Mr X. The strategy has not gone to consultation yet so we do not know what changes to permits and charges will be implemented following this. The Council has confirmed it now has a lead officer in place to take this forward.
In line with the Council’s current parking strategy Mr X has continued to pay £50 a year for each of his residents’ permits. Any delay in implementing the new strategy has not caused Mr X any significant injustice as the circumstances around his resident’s permit remain the same. Further investigation would unlikely lead to a different outcome.
Mr X says it is unfair that some residents on his street and in the local area have not had to pay for parking over the last 2-3 years. However, the Council has discretion to change, suspend or amend how it charges for parking. In this case it decided to make concessions to certain residents who use off-street permits until it had resolved the implementation of the new strategy. It is unlikely further investigation would find the Council at fault for its decision making around this issue and, in any case, this has not caused Mr X a significant injustice as he continues to be charged in line with the Council’s current parking strategy. We do not consider that a benefit to one person is evidence of an injustice to another.
Final decision
I ended my investigation because the alleged faults did not cause significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman