The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained the Council charged her for a parking suspension application without properly informing her of the charges. She said she received an invoice she was not expecting. We do not find the Council at fault.
The complaint
Miss X complained the Council charged her for a parking suspension application without properly informing her of the charges. She said the Council’s website is unclear. Miss X said she received an invoice she was not expecting.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
I considered the relevant Council policy and information, set out below.
What I found
What should have happened The Council’s website sets out its charges for suspending parking bays, and for dispensations/coning requests (which allow room for large deliveries or equipment, for example, to be delivered to an address).
To temporarily suspend a parking bay, the Council charges £32 per day. “Parking bays” include residents’ parking bays, shared-use bays, pay and display bays, limited waiting bays, and bays in Council car parks.
The website says to apply to temporarily put traffic cones on a road or yellow lines, “The cost of the dispensation or coning request on a road where there's not already a parking bay is £32 per day per 5 metre length, up to a maximum of £128 per day.”
The application form says if a suspension of bays or a dispensation is no longer needed, the applicant must email the Council at least 24 hours before the start date and time. It says, “failure to do so will result in you still being charged.”
The application form says, “We’ll send you an invoice for the whole cost after the start date of your request. The invoice will have details of how to pay.”
What happened Miss X applied to the Council to suspend three parking bays. The Council sent her an invoice. Miss X queried the invoice with the Council.
The Council said Miss X had applied to suspend three parking bays. It said she ticked the box on the application form which said she understood the terms and conditions, and that she would be sent an invoice.
Miss X complained to the Council.
The Council said if Miss X had any doubts about whether she would be charged, she could have contacted the Council before or after making her application. She did not do this.
The Council said it had considered Miss X’s point about the information on its website not being clear. The Council agreed there may be some ambiguity but the steps she then had to take showed she would be charged for the service.
Miss X then complained to the Ombudsman.
Analysis Miss X told me she did online research about how to make an application. She said she understood there was a difference between a request to suspend parking bays and a request for dispensation/cones. She said she read the information about both types of requests but did not know which type of application applied to her road.
Miss X told me she does not remember how she decided which type of application to make. She said she picked one and hoped for the best. She thought they would essentially be the same thing. Miss X said she did not contact the Council for clarity because she did not see a reason for it. She said the Council did not give contact details to contact if she had a question and she had already started her application, so she did not try.
Miss X told me she thought she was making a coning application. In reality, she made a suspension application.
I find the Council gave Miss X its contact details. The confirmation email the Council sent Miss X said if she had any questions to email a specific email address. Miss X could have emailed the Council at the given address to confirm she would not be charged. She chose not to do this. Also, Miss X could have contacted the Council’s parking department before making the application had she wanted to.
I find there was information before Miss X made the application and on the application form itself that showed she would be charged: the website says the Council charges £32 per day to temporarily suspend a parking bay; the application form says if a suspension of bays or a dispensation is no longer needed, the applicant must email the Council at least 24 hours before the start date and time. It says, “failure to do so will result in you still being charged” (my emphasis); and, the application form also says, “We’ll send you an invoice for the whole cost after the start date of your request. The invoice will have details of how to pay.”
I find the Council processed the application Miss X made and charged her in line with the information on the website and the information on the application form. I therefore do not find the Council at fault. Miss X assumed there would be no charge. This is not evidence of fault.
Miss X said she assumed there would be no cost because of the way she interpreted the information on the Council’s website. She said the website is unclear. The information Miss X refers to is about dispensation/coning requests, which says: “The cost of the dispensation or coning request on a road where there's not already a parking bay is £32 per day per 5 metre length, up to a maximum of £128 per day.”
Miss X said she understood this meant there would be no cost for a request where there is already a parking bay.
While this information about dispensation/coning requests could be seen as ambiguous, Miss X did not make an application for dispensation. She applied to suspend three parking bays. This is a different type of application. So ultimately, I find Miss X’s point about ambiguity had no bearing on the type of application she made and the fact she was charged for it.
However, as the Council recognised in its complaint response, there may be some ambiguity in the above information on its website. We suggested the Council may wish to consider rewording the information on its website so it is clearer. The Council said it will consider this. A possible example of clearer wording could be: “Dispensation or coning requests are for roads where there are no parking bays. The cost of the request is …” This is a matter for the Council.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. I do not uphold Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is no fault.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman