The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the use of technology in assessing charges in a car park. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the IT system in a car park is not fit for purpose and caused stress and inconvenience. Mr X wants compensation for his time.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
Cameras in the car park record the arrival and departure time of cars by reading the number plate. Unless people have an account they have to pay at a kiosk and record their arrival time and registration. The gates then record the departure time and payment.
Mr X entered a car park. The camera recorded his arrival time as 18.35. I have seen a screenshot of his number plate which confirms the time. Mr X paid £4.40 at the kiosk and recorded an arrival time of 19.50. He made a payment based on that time. When he left the car park the system noted a discrepancy between the times and charged an additional sum of £7.20 at the gate. Mr X says this was very stressful and other drivers became annoyed due to the delay at the gate.
Mr X complained and said the problem was caused by IT problems. He denied in-putting any wrong information at the kiosk, as the Council had suggested. The Council said there were no reports of any IT problems that day and nobody else had reported a problem. It provided Mr X with a screenshot of his arrival and departure time and said he may find it easier to set up an account so that payment would be taken automatically. Although the Council did not find any fault with the system it offered a full refund of £11.60. It declined to pay Mr X’s invoice for £53 which included an amount for his time, labour, administration fee and VAT. The Council asked Mr X to get in touch to provide his details for the refund. Mr X has not done this.
Mr X says he should not have to provide any information at the kiosk because of the number plate recognition. He does not want to have an account because he has many problems with various Council systems. He says the IT system in the car park represents a service failure and many people complain about it. He also says he lost a day’s income of £800 because he had to deal with this complaint.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I do not know what happened because Mr X is clear he provided the correct information at the kiosk. But, there is nothing to suggest there was a problem with number plate recognition or any other IT error. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. I appreciate Mr X does not like the system and does not think he should have to provide information at the kiosk; but he could avoid that by having an account. It is for Mr X to decide whether he wants an account and it is for the Council, not us, to decide what car park payment system to use.
I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. The Council has offered a full refund even though there is nothing to suggest the system failed. Mr X can contact the Council if he wants to receive the payment. We do not expect councils to cover someone’s time in making a complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman