The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the introduction of charges at car parks via a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council introduced car parking charges near a Church and did not consider the negative effect it would have on it and its visitors. She wants the parking charges removed, or at least not enforced on Sundays in respect of Church services.
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
I considered the Council’s published reports on its website in relation to this TRO.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Mrs X was given the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered her comments before making a final decision.
My assessment
Mrs X, treasurer of a Church, complained to the Council that the Church had not been involved in the decision-making process when the TRO for the car parking charges was proposed. She says a Council officer told her the Church had no right to be involved in negotiations about the proposals. She also disputes the officer’s claim that a telephone discussion with a Church representative amounted to formal consultation. In her view, the Church’s opposition to the proposed charges was not properly considered.
Regarding the formal process of making the TRO, a report on the Council’s website indicates that public notices were sited in the car parks affected, emails were sent out to residents who had signed up to receive consultations and interested organisations, including the Church, for their views.
The consultation took place between June and July 2021. Comments received were considered, with the TRO approved in July 2021.
A main theme noted was concerns raised over the financial impact on parishioners of and visitors to the Church that charging could create. The Council offered a concession to the Church to purchase 10 transferable season tickets for use by staff and volunteers. It felt this was adequate with the offer extended to other similar organisations which are also frequent users of other coastal car parks.
Following the formal decision, Council members called the decision in for discussion at the Scrutiny Panel. This provided a further opportunity for interested parties to make representations.
Whilst Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision to introduce charges at the Church’s nearby car parks, it is not our role to question whether it is right or wrong. The question for us is whether there is significant fault in the way the decision was made, and if so, whether this is likely to have led to a different outcome.
The Council was aware of the Church’s opposition to the parking charges and the reasons for it. It was for the Council to decide what weight to give to the evidence before it. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made the TRO. In the absence of fault, we cannot consider the merits of the decision, or intervene to substitute an alternative view.
There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint as it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman