The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council are dealing with electric vehicle charging in the local area. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate. The complainant has also not suffered significant personal injustice and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council is refusing to accept applications for cross pavement electric vehicle charging points for residents without off street parking. Mr X says public charging is too expensive and means he cannot switch from a petrol car to an electric vehicle. Mr X wants the Council to be transparent about the costs of public charging and allow residents to apply for cross pavement vehicle charging points.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) 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 or continue an investigation if we decide: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman.
I understand the Council’s stage two response to Mr X was within the last 12 months. However, we expect people to complain to us within a year of becoming aware of a problem. Mr X was aware of this issue in 2023 and I consider he could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.
I understand Mr X has been in ongoing correspondence with the Council. But even if I did consider that Mr X’s complaint was in time, my decision not to investigate would be the same.
The cross-pavement charging solutions market is at an early stage. However, a variety of solutions have been trialled by local authorities. The Council considered Mr X’s concerns and explained that it is monitoring the issue and working with the Department for Transport. The Council’s website says it successfully applied for funding to support cross pavement vehicle charging and the funds will be available soon.
Mr X also complained about the cost of public charging. The Council assured Mr X it will seek to find the best contract for residents.
Mr X wants the Council to approach specific energy providers. The Council explained to Mr X why it cannot do this and the contract is out for tender.
It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add anything further to the Council’s response.
Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter. I understand Mr X feels he cannot change from a petrol car to an electric vehicle, but as he does not currently have an electric vehicle I do not consider he has suffered any significant personal injustice.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the complaint is late. Mr X has also not suffered significant personal injustice and it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman