Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Other Reference 22-008-540 Sector Transport And Highways Category Parking And Other Penalties Decided 20 October 2022

View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Clean Air Zone. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

Mr Y complained the Council has not included vehicles, such as small vans used for private travel between work premises and home, as exempt under the Council’s Clean Air Zone (CAZ).

Mr Y says he only enters the CAZ for 100 yards to enter his employer’s car park and the Council’s lack of exemption for his vehicle means he has additional costs of £200 a month, which he says he cannot afford.

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 Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

The Council introduced a CAZ in September 2022. The Council has an exemption process for residents and businesses in its area with non-compliant vehicles bought prior to the introduction of the CAZ. Mr Y applied for an exemption prior to the introduction of the CAZ in April 2022.

While the Council initially agreed to grant Mr Y an exemption, it then corrected its decision as Mr Y was not a resident and was not therefore entitled to an exemption. Mr Y says this means he now has additional costs of £200 per month to enter the CAZ for 100 yards to then turn into his employer’s car park. Mr Y approached us in September.

Analysis The Council offers exemptions for those who are resident within the Council area. Mr Y is not a resident in the Council’s area and on this basis the Council decided that Mr Y is not eligible for an exemption. Mr Y’s vehicle, by nature of his complaint, is also not exempt under other criteria, such as being a historic or zero emissions vehicle.

We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.

Mr Y may not agree with the policy and may find that he does not receive an exemption under it. The Council has applied the information provided about Mr Y and his vehicle to its policy and ultimately found it does not meet the exemption criteria. As it did this with proper consideration of the relevant factors set out in the exemption criteria, it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision not to grant him an exemption.

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving City of Bradford Metropolitan District …

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-030-607 Other
25-029-551 Other
25-015-846 Other
25-018-416 Other
25-006-606 Upheld
View all decisions for this organisation