The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s decision to increase parking charges based on emissions was unfair. He says it affects the lower paid. We have not found fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant whom I shall call Mr X, complains that: the Council’s emissions based parking charge is unfair and discriminates against the low paid. He says that the Council did not properly consider this. He says he pays more, even when his car is stationary and not producing emissions.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way a Council made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).
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 have discussed the complaint with the complainant and considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Local Authorities have powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended) to make or amend charges for parking in specified parking places or controlled parking zones.
The Council introduced its emissions based parking charges (EBPC) in March 2021. The parking charges for certain vehicles with higher carbon dioxide emissions and for diesel fuelled vehicles were increased.
The Council says the intention behind the EBPC is to encourage people to move away from higher emission vehicles and towards low or zero emission models. The EBPC met with the Council’s objectives to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and improve air quality, which were objectives within the Council’s Climate Emergency Action Plan and Air Quality Action Plan 2018-2023.
The Council considered the EBPC would be complimentary to the London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) introduced in October 2021.
The Council’s proposals and its decision I have considered the process the Council followed in its decision making about the charges.
The Council’s proposals for emissions based parking charges were considered by its Cabinet in July 2020. The report to the Cabinet included EBPC amongst other transport measures, such as Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and a Work Place Parking Levy. The Council considered factors such as its own priorities, the financial implications and its legislative powers in respect of transport control.
The Council noted the impact of Covid 19 had led to more parking in the borough as drivers drove into the borough, parked, and then used public transport for their ongoing journey. Parking charges were comparatively low and had not increased for 8 years. This increase in parking from vehicles driving in had led to a decrease in parking spaces for residents of the borough.
The Council considered the impact of its proposals on low income families. It noted that owning vehicles was generally lower in low income families. It also noted that low income families were “more likely to … suffer from the effects of NOx [nitrogen oxide] and particulate emissions as it can compound other health issues associated with low incomes such things as poorer living standards and nutrition”.
The Council also stated: “In equality terms we must acknowledge that some low-income residents may be disproportionately financially disadvantaged by these changes to charging and members may wish to consider mitigations. However, the positives of improving the environment has the greatest benefit to low-income residents and any mitigation needs to be looked at in the round.”
The Council’s Cabinet approved the recommendations of the report which included consulting residents and statutory bodies.
The Council consulted regarding the proposed changes to scheme in February 2021, by advertising in the London Gazette. There were no responses or objections from individuals.
The Council carried out an Equalities Impact Assessment which considered the impact of the proposed transport and parking changes on different groups or communities within the borough with protected characteristics. The specified protected characteristics for equalities purposes are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion, sex and sexual identity. The Council considered the impacts were neutral or positive for most of these groups with the exception of religion, where it found there may be a negative impact for religious (specifically Christian) groups due to charges being changed on Sunday.
Analysis I consider the Council followed the correct process and considered relevant factors when making its decision. The Council carried out an Equality Impact Assessment which considered the impact on people with protected characteristics.
The Council considered the impact of its recommendations on the low paid. It weighed this up against the impact of poor air quality and improving the environment by reducing emissions before making its decision.
The Council consulted residents for their views about the proposed scheme but did not receive any comments or objections.
I could not see evidence of fault by the Council in its decision making regarding introducing the scheme. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the Council.
Final decision
I have not found fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman