Summary: Miss T complained about a lack of functioning parking machines in the city centre, limiting her ability to pay cash for on-street parking. We did not consider this a service failure, given Miss T had alternative means to pay. But we upheld the complaint because of poor customer service Miss T received, putting her to unnecessary time, trouble and inconvenience. The Council has accepted this finding and at the end of this statement we set out action it has agreed to remedy her injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss T complained about the lack of functioning parking machines in the city centre. She said an alternative parking app was unreliable. She also complained the Council misled her when answering complaints about this issue.
2. Miss T said because she could not pay for parking in the city centre, she twice received Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). She later used taxi or public transport to travel into the city centre at more expense.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
6. We may not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider a complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
7. We have the power to investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation if we think a member of the public (other than or as well as the complainant) may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, Section 26D)
8. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. I investigated Miss T’s complaint about the lack of functioning parking machines in the city centre and the impact this had on her ability to pay for parking. But I did not investigate Miss T’s concern that a vehicle she used received two PCNs because of the difficulties she experienced parking.
10. That was because there is a right of appeal to a tribunal where someone wants to appeal a PCN (see paragraph 5). I understood Miss T could not use this right because while she drove the vehicle which incurred the PCNs she was not its registered keeper. Only the registered keeper had the right of appeal.
11. However, given the registered keeper had such a right, the principle still held that a tribunal could consider an appeal against the PCNs. Consequently, I decided we should not use our discretion to investigate this issue. Because the tribunal, as the expert body, could do so and would be the better place to hear an appeal.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Miss T’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information she provided;
• correspondence Miss T and the Council exchanged about the matters covered by the complaint;
• any relevant law, Government guidance or guidance published by this office referred to in the text below.

13. I also gave Miss T and the Council a chance to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I took account of any responses they made before finalising the statement.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

14. Miss T first complained about problems parking in the city centre in June 2023. She said she found it hard to park and pay cash for parking from on-street parking machines, as so many were out of order. In its reply, the Council recognised there was a problem and apologised for the inconvenience caused by machines being out of order. It said many of the machines were old and often vandalised and it worked with the police to investigate this. The Council said it tried to repair machines as a priority, but it took time to source replacement parts. It said it planned to replace the machines over time. When doing so, it remained committed to giving people choice to pay cash for parking.
15. Miss T next got in touch with the Council in December 2023. She said she had not contacted it again sooner, as she wanted to see if it would repair parking machines, but she saw no evidence for this. She said using on-street parking therefore relied on having a smart phone and using a parking app. But this was unreliable. She raised the issue of one of the PCNs incurred.
16. An officer from the Highways complaint team replied, although they did not make clear if their response came under the Council complaint procedure. They explained in more detail why parking machines were often out of order, again citing vandalism. They said the Council continued to report this to the police. They said the Council had ten new parking machines on order for one part of the city centre. They did not respond to Miss T’s comments about the PCN.
17. In her next correspondence Miss T asked the Council to stop issuing PCNs to those drivers who could not find a working parking machine. She asked it to refund the PCN charges she incurred. In February 2024, the Council explained again that vandalism put the machines out of order. It said the app provided as an alternative, was reliable. It offered to “refund any parking charges made at [this location] of money was lost while trying to pay cash at any of the machines” (sic). This response signposted Miss T to this office if she remained dissatisfied.
18. Miss T thanked the Council for its reply, repeating the app was unreliable. She said it also could not be used by anyone without a smart phone. Miss T said she would forward to the Council details of “parking charges received”. In early March, Miss T sent copies of multiple receipts to the Council showing the costs of the PCNs, coach and taxi fares she had incurred. These totalled around £215.
19. In April Miss T contacted us including as part of her complaint, that it had not refunded these costs.
20. We asked the Council for more comments on the complaint and it told us that it had never promised to refund any costs for PCNs Miss T incurred. It said that if Miss T could not use the parking app, then she could alternatively pay for parking by phone.
21. We asked the Council for some general information about the number of parking machines out of order. It sent us details of parking machines within one part of the city centre, of which only 10 of 74 worked. It could not repair the rest or it had removed them. It said this was because it could no longer source spare parts because of the age of the machines. It had new machines ready to install and was obtaining quotes for this. It said it did not consider the lack of machines disadvantaged disabled drivers. This was because of the blue badge scheme (where the driver does not need to pay for on-street parking) and because drivers could pay by phone.
22. In July 2024 Miss T again contacted the Council about wanting a refund for the PCN charges. The Council repeated its offer to refund Miss T for any parking charges lost.
23. Miss T separately made a Freedom of Information request to the Council and or West Midlands police. From the replies, she understood the Council had not reported vandalism to its parking machines to the police as it initially stated to her.

My findings

Miss T’s complaint about parking machines

24. I accepted Miss T had experienced difficulties paying cash for parking in the city centre because of the number of parking machines out of order. I considered if this amounted to a service failing by the Council. A service failing does not imply any bad faith or administrative error by the Council. Sometimes a council can find itself unable to deliver a service because of having no or limited resources, or for reasons beyond its control.
25. However, I did not consider the problem identified by Miss T met this test. This was because the Council had identified different ways Miss T could pay for parking. She had the choice of using the smart phone app (and I note Miss T used a taxi provider that uses a well-known app) or to pay by telephone. I was satisfied the Council made these choices clear through signage on its parking machines and on its website. And while limited, I noted there were in any event still some working machines that accepted cash.
26. I found the above caused inconvenience to Miss T. But even if I came to the view, it was a service failing, I could not say it amounted to an injustice for her. This was because she had the alternative means to pay by phone or she could use a car park as an alternative to on-street parking.

Customer service given to Miss T

27. Next, I considered the Council’s customer service to Miss T in response to her complaint. Here I had some concerns:

• first, I did not understand why, in reply to Miss T’s complaint, the Council did not point out she could pay by phone. It was not until it replied to our enquiries the Council pointed that out;
• second, the correspondence the Council sent to Miss T in January 2024 did not say where it sat in the Council’s complaint procedure. If offered no signposting for Miss T on how to pursue her complaint. It ignored the comments made by Miss T about the PCNs she incurred;
• third, I found the Council gave no reply to Miss T’s email in March where she sent details of money she wanted refunding;
• fourth, I found later the Council became confused about Miss T’s request for a refund. It offered for a second time to refund any money she lost because of parking machines taking cash without issuing a ticket. But this was never Miss T’s grievance, something that was clear by July 2024. So, this suggested inattention by the Council;
• fifth, the Council clearly gave Miss T the impression initially that it wanted to repair parking machines, which it later said it could not repair. I considered in part this could be because of the passage of time. But given Miss T saw no difference in the number of working machines between June and December 2023 on balance I considered that unlikely. I questioned therefore if the Council could have been more candid on this point, sooner.

28. Taken on their own, I did not consider each of these concerns enough to amount to a finding of fault, or that of fault causing injustice. But after considering the cumulative effect, I felt on balance the customer service given to Miss T poor enough to justify such a finding. The result of which was the Council put her to unnecessary time, trouble and inconvenience. The Council accepted this finding and at the end of this statement I set out the action it agreed to remedy this injustice.
29. I did not consider any fault extended to the Council misleading Miss T that it would refund charges she incurred for the PCNs or her travel costs to the city centre by other means. The critical email sent by the Council in February 2024 explained it would refund any cash she paid into a machine which then failed to issue a ticket. It did not offer any refund of the charges incurred for the PCNs and explained what the registered keeper of the car needed to do next about contact on that issue.

Wider implications

30. Finally, I considered any wider implications arising from this complaint, assuming others will have also struggled to find on-street parking machines in the city centre accepting cash.
31. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010, including age and disability. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED).
32. The PSED requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) to have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

33. So, its broad purpose is to consider equality and good relations as part of the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires councils to reflect equality considerations when designing policies and delivering services.
34. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as only the courts can do this. But we can decide whether an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. We can also flag wider concerns to councils about their responsibilities under the PSED.
35. Having noted the above, I decided on balance not to undertake any wider investigation, because:

• the shortage of on-street parking machines accepting cash in the city centre was not the result of any policy decision by the Council. It consistently reiterated it remained committed to letting those parking in the city pay by cash;
• the Council had plans to end the current shortage of machines, having purchased some new machines which await fitting;
• as such I did not consider it likely the Council was under any duty to conduct an exercise to examine the PSED in relation to parking machines accepting cash in the city centre;
• consequently, it was not likely we would find the Council failed to have due regard to the needs of disabled motorists. This was also after noting the effect of the blue badge scheme;
• nor was it likely we would find individual drivers belonging to any other group with a protected characteristic (such as older drivers) adversely affected. I noted here the ability to pay for on-street parking by telephone and that around 98% of the population own a mobile phone (Ofcom Market Report: 2023).

Back to top

Agreed action

36. To remedy the injustice caused to Miss T, the Council agreed that within 20 working days of a decision on this complaint it would:
1. apologise to her, accepting the findings of this investigation and following guidance set out in Section 3.2 of our published guidance on remedies; Guidance on remedies - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
2. and make a symbolic payment to her of £150.
37. The Council will provide us with evidence when it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

38. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Miss T. The Council has accepted this finding and agreed action to remedy that injustice. Consequently, I have completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman