The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr C complained about the Council providing insufficient spaces in the residents’ parking zone where he lived which he considered resulted in him receiving numerous Penalty Charge Notices and the recovery of debts from him by bailiffs. We have found no fault in the Council’s actions with regard to those aspects of the complaint within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The complaint
Mr C complains that: the Council has not provided enough parking spaces within the neighbourhood parking zone where he lives, despite promising more for the past five years; the Council should have made other spaces in the town centre available when many residents were working from home during COVID-19 lockdowns; due to the lack of spaces, he often could not park within a reasonable distance of his home and received numerous Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs); although he disputed the PCNs, the Council engaged bailiffs who wrongly described the debt as council tax arrears, threatened to clamp his legally parked car and were intimidating towards him; and he was unable to dispute the legality of the parking scheme in court.
He considers that the Council should increase the number of spaces and refund the charges that he has incurred.
What I have investigated I have investigated Mr C’s complaints about parking provision since 2021 and the conduct of bailiffs’ visiting his partner’s home to enforce parking debts. For the reasons set out in the Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate section below, I have not investigated other parts of Mr C’s complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about “maladministration” and “service failure”. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as “injustice”. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) 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/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916) 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 considered Mr C’s written complaint and supporting correspondence and the notes of his telephone discussion with a colleague. I have also considered the Council’s response to our enquiries. I have had regard to relevant legislation and guidance. We also sent Mr C and the Council a draft decision and I have considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.
What I found
What happened Mr C lived with his partner in an area of their town where there is considerable parking pressure. Both Mr C and his partner are over 70 years old. Mr C has some walking difficulty and uses a stick but is not eligible for a Blue Badge.
There are residents’ parking zones (RPZs) in the town which allow residents to purchase permits to park in designated residents’ bays. The current residents’ parking scheme is authorised by a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) made by Suffolk County Council in April 2019 with its powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended.
In accordance with the TRO, there is no restriction on the ratio of permits to the ratio of bays – if an application is compliant then a permit is issued. The terms and conditions state that a permit does not guarantee a space.
Since April 2020, West Suffolk District Council (the Council) has carried out civil enforcement under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and associated regulations. It is responsible for making of orders for off-street parking, but Suffolk County Council remains responsible for making of on-street TROs.
In April 2020, with many families working from home due to COVID-19, councillors agreed to let all RPZ permit holders park for free in all Council off-street car parks. This was to try to reduce congestion, dangerous and inconsiderate parking in the permit areas. The initiative was revoked in April 2022.
Mr C and his partner lived in an area where there is an RPZ. However, he was not always able to find a space within a residents’ bay and received fifteen PCNs for parking contraventions.
Mr C has complained that the Council has issued more permits than there are available parking spaces. He has appealed some of the PCNs unsuccessfully to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal with an adjudicator observing that: “Whilst I understand Mr [C’s] frustration, as permit schemes are frequently oversubscribed, that is not a reason to allow either of his appeals. Almost all councils face the near impossible task of dividing up the available parking space by the number of local vehicles requiring parking.”
Mr C has also complained about the visit of bailiffs to collect a debt which he agreed to pay.
My assessment
Parking provision since 2021 Mr C has complained about the lack of parking spaces, the delay creating additional spaces and the arrangements during COVID-19.
Parking Spaces The current parking arrangements are determined by the TRO the County Council made in 2019. As set out below, it is not for the Ombudsman to question the validity or legality of those arrangements.
Since 2021, the Council has been undertaking a residential parking review for all areas of the town. This involves consultations with stakeholders, local businesses and resident associations. It also involves public consultations and surveys to prepare recommendations and proposals for possible changes to the RPZ areas.
The Council has engaged with the County Council to identify 35 additional RPZ bays. To implement this will involve extending existing RPZ bays and revoking Single Yellow Line areas. It expects to conclude the review in Autumn 2022. The County Council would then need to ratify any changes to the residents' scheme by following the statutory process to make a TRO.
I appreciate that it may be frustrating that there are limited bays available, but there is a statutory process to follow to make changes to parking arrangements. That is frequently a lengthy process. In the meantime, the Council is entitled to carry out enforcement based on the existing TRO. I see no fault here.
COVID-19 arrangements There was increased parking pressure during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Council took steps to try and mitigate the situation by opening its car parks to residents free-of-charge. I appreciate that using the car parks presented some difficulty for Mr C, but the Council was still entitled to enforce on-street parking in line with the TRO. I see no fault here.
Bailiffs’ actions Mr C says the bailiffs wrongly described the debt as council tax arrears. However, that does not mean that the bailiffs were not entitled to recover the debt that was due.
Mr C has suggested the bailiffs were intimidating towards him and his partner who are elderly and potentially vulnerable. He also says it was inappropriate for them to visit and threatened to clamp his legally parked car.
Mr C and his partner are elderly and therefore might be classed as vulnerable. However, I note that Mr C was fully aware that there were outstanding parking penalties. He had spoken with the bailiffs’ office the day before but was refusing to pay them as a matter of principle. In the circumstances I cannot see that it was unreasonable for the bailiffs to seek to enforce the debt.
I appreciate that Mr C was unhappy to be visited in the early morning by bailiffs. However, the bailiffs were operating within their usual hours and they do not agree with Mr C’s account that they were intimidating. Rather they consider that the exchange was courteous. Given the difference of views, I can make no findings on this.
As to the threat to clamp the vehicle, the fact that Mr C’s partner jointly owns the vehicle with him does not prevent the bailiffs from taking such action.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation because I have found no fault by the Council.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate Parking provision prior to 2021 Mr C says the Council has promised more parking spaces for the past five years.
I am not able to investigate Mr C’s complaint about lack of parking provision prior to 2021 because I consider it would have been reasonable for him to have complained about this at the time.
Penalty Charge Notices Mr C considers that the Council was wrong to issue PCNs when it had failed to provide sufficient parking spaces.
Mr C has appealed some of the PCNs to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to consider these cases. Where Mr C has not appealed, I consider it would be reasonable to use or to have used his appeal right.
Appointment of bailiffs Mr C complains that the Council engaged bailiffs to recover parking debts from him.
When seeking to recover unpaid PCNs, there is a statutory process which includes councils applying to the courts for an “Order for Recovery”. If payment is still not received after an Order for Recovery is issued, councils may apply to the courts for a “Warrant of Control” in order to appoint bailiffs to recover the debt.
Mr C has challenged several of the Orders for Recovery by making a declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. The Ombudsman therefore has no jurisdiction to consider these cases further. I consider it would be reasonable for Mr C to follow the same process if he feels that the Council has not followed due process in appointing bailiffs in other cases.
Lawfulness of the Council’s parking scheme Mr C has complained that he could not challenge the lawfulness of the Council’s parking scheme in the courts.
The current TRO has been in place since April 2019. When a TRO is made, there is a statutory process for the Council (in the case Suffolk County Council) to follow. This allows statutory consultees and members of the public to raise objections to the proposals. Once the TRO is made, it is also possible to possible to challenge the validity of the TRO in the High Court.
It is not for the Ombudsman to determine the lawfulness of the TRO. Moreover, it was open to Mr C to raise any objections when consultation took place in 2019 or to have challenged the TRO’s validity in the High Court.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman