The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s implementation of a traffic regulation order, nor will we investigate the pricing of dispensation permits in his area. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council has not followed the proper process in implementing a traffic regulation order. He also complains the prices of dispensation permits is unfair.
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 or continue 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 and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained the Council made a traffic regulation order (TRO) without properly considering the impact to local residents. He also complained that pricing for dispensation permits was higher than residential permits and this was unfair.
The Council confirmed it considered all comments received during the consultation period and it was implementing the TRO due to safety concerns.
The Council carried out a site assessment in response to the high volume of comments received and uncovered numerous parking violations that posed a risk to the public. The Council explained the TRO was brought in to address this.
The Council told Mr X dispensation permits are more expensive than residential permits because they serve a different purpose and invited him to submit a review of pricing for parking fees.
Mr X remains unhappy with the Council’s actions and wants us to find it at fault. The evidence shows the Council has implemented the TRO in line with the correct policy. It has considered the comments it received during the consultation process and decided to proceed with the TRO. It was entitled to take this action and there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making. An investigation would therefore be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.
Mr X is unhappy with the pricing difference between residential and dispensation permits. The Council has explained the reasons for this and given Mr X information as to how he can request a review of the pricing. This is what we would expect the Council to do. An investigation into this part of the complaint would be unlikely to find fault.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman