The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to suspend some parking bays. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council suspended some parking bays and will not issue a pro-rata refund for his parking permit. He says there should be a limit on how many bays can be suspended. Mr X also says the Council resold the bays to the organisation that requested the suspension.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X. This includes the complaint correspondence and information about permits on the Council’s website. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council approved the suspension of some parking bays in Mr X’s street. The Council gave advance notice. There were two suspension periods covering just over ten days and included less than half the bays in the street. Mr X could still use the bays in the other roads in the Controlled Park Zone (CPZ).
Mr X complained about the suspensions and asked for a pro-rata refund for his parking permit. The Council explained that the Traffic Management Order (TMO), and the terms and conditions for parking permits, both state the Council can, for certain reasons, suspend parking bays without giving notice. It explained there is no provision for issuing a refund. It said that for major issues it may grant a dispensation to park in another CPZ, but this was not needed in this case as the impact was not significant enough. However, because Mr X had said he was inconvenienced by the suspension, the Council said it would not approve more suspensions, for the same reason, for at least three months. The Council also explained that it does not sell parking bays but residents can buy a permit to allow parking within the CPZ; the permit does not guarantee a parking space or guarantee parking in any particular street.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X disagrees with the suspension, and the reasons for it, but as the TMO and the terms and conditions allow the Council to suspend bays, there is no suggestion of fault and no reason to start an investigation. There is no provision in the policy for a refund so nothing to suggest fault in the Council’s decision not to issue one. Further, the Council assesses each suspension request individually and there is no provision to limit the number of approvals.
I appreciate Mr X is unhappy with the suspensions and the lack of a refund. But we are not an appeal body and we cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with. We can only consider if there was fault in the way a council makes a decision and in this case there is no suggestion of fault.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman