The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about changes to a parking permit scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council installed a large parking bay in street A although the resident who uses it only has a small car. Mr X says residents were not notified and he finds it hard to park in his own road (street B). Mr X wants the bay removed.
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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X. This includes the complaint response. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
A resident applied to join the residents parking scheme for street A. This required an extension to the scheme so the Council had to follow the statutory process. The Council assessed the application and the level of parking demand and supply in the street. It advertised the proposed changes and there was a period of public consultation. The application was approved and the Council provided a new permit parking bay; from the photograph provided by Mr X I estimate the space is large enough for three or four cars. Anyone with a permit valid in street A can use the new bay. The bay is not just for the use of the resident who made the application.
Mr X used to park in the area which is now restricted to permit holders. He cannot apply for a permit because he does not live in street A. Mr X finds it hard to park in street B and says it is unfair that such a large space has been provided for the use of just one resident.
The Council told Mr X the residents of his street could apply for a permit scheme for street B. It also said there are some parking spaces in street A that are free for anyone to use.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council responded appropriately to a request to change the permit scheme in street A by assessing the parking provision and demand, advertising the proposed changes, and consulting with residents. Mr X may have been unaware of the proposal but that does not mean the Council has done anything wrong. In addition, the new bay is not just for the resident who applied but is for all permit holders in that road. I appreciate Mr X may find it hard to park in street B but that does not mean changes cannot be made in other streets or that he has the right to park in any street.
I also will not investigate this complaint because we cannot tell the Council to remove the bay. The Council could only remove the bay by following the statutory process and again considering the parking situation in street A.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman