Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s lack of parking enforcement in the controlled parking zone covering his home. This is because the issue did not cause him significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly enforce parking restrictions in a controlled parking zone (CPZ) covering his home during February 2023. He says this impacted on residents’ ability to park and he believes the Council should issue a refund to cover the lack of service over the period.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X lives in a CPZ operated and maintained by the Council. During February 2023 the Council operated a reduced parking enforcement service due to industrial action by civil enforcement officers (parking wardens) employed by its contractor.
5. We cannot become involved in the rights and wrongs of the strike, which resulted from matters outside the Council’s control, but we recognise that residents may be frustrated and believe they are due a refund.
6. However, any injustice to Mr X as an affected resident is not significant enough to warrant investigation. Mr X contributes to the cost of delivering the scheme and associated parking enforcement by purchasing a parking permit. This does not guarantee that all cars which are parked without a permit will be removed or issued with a penalty charge notice (PCN), or even that Mr X will be able to park outside or close to his home; rather it allows Mr X to park within the CPZ without fear of receiving a fine. In this respect the position for Mr X in February 2023 remained unchanged.
7. The amount of the permit charge which relates to enforcement over the period of the strike action is also not significant. The cost of a first and second vehicle permit, per year, is £84 and £168 respectively. This breaks down to £7 or £14 per month and only part of this payment goes towards the cost of employing parking wardens to enforce the scheme. This contribution also covers enforcement across the CPZ and not just around Mr X’s property. The amount Mr X contributes towards enforcement on his own road would be almost impossible to quantify and would not be significant enough to warrant the cost of an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice Mr X claims is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman