The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council applied parking restrictions. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process and any injustice Mr X may have suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council restricted business parking permits without sufficient evidence. He says it carried out no parking occupancy surveys or traffic modelling and did not assess whether public transport was a realistic alternative for employees. He also says it relied on a consultation response rate that was too low to represent local businesses. Mr X says the restrictions have made it harder to recruit and keep staff, placing pressure on his business and leading him to consider closure. Mr X wants the Council to reconsider its decision and provide an alternative solution, such as issuing an extra business parking permit.
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, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Under highway legislation, councils hold broad powers to manage on-street parking. The Council is entitled to set up local parking policies, introduce parking restrictions and enforce them through Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO).
The Council conducted a statutory consultation about the local parking arrangements. Whether restrictions were already in place before or during this process, the Council was entitled to apply its permit policy while evaluating feedback. Mr X said the overall response rate to the consultation was low and did not adequately represent local businesses. A low-level of public engagement in a statutory consultation does not invalidate the process.
There is no evidence the Council was required to get the specific evidence Mr X said it should have gathered before deciding whether to introduce or keep permit restrictions. Councils are not responsible for providing parking for staff employed by private businesses. The Council was entitled to rely on information available to it, including its knowledge of local parking conditions, its parking policy, and responses to the consultation, to exercise its professional judgement.
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision because someone disagrees with it. Instead, we consider whether the organisation followed the correct process in reaching its decision. Where there is no evidence of fault in that process, we cannot question the merits of the decision itself. The available evidence shows the Council considered the relevant information, addressed Mr X's concerns and explained the reasons for its decision. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
Mr X complained the permit restrictions affected staff recruitment and placed pressure on his business. However, the Council's permit policy applies to all private businesses in the area. There is insufficient evidence that any personal injustice to Mr X is so significant to warrant an investigation, particularly as there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision-making process.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and any injustice Mr X may have suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman