Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to introduce charges for residents’ parking permits on the street where he lives. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to introduce a £35 charge for residents’ parking permits on the street where he has lived for over 35 years.

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)
3. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council about its decision to introduce charges for residents’ parking permits on the street where he lives. Mr X only became aware of this when he went to renew his parking permit.
8. The Council explained the introduction of charges was agreed as part of its budget setting process for 2024-2025. A proposal was submitted and agreed by elected members and there followed a public consultation period which was advertised locally and on the Council’s website. The Traffic Regulation Order came into force in October 2024. It explained it had acted in line with its decision making process and that the decision cannot be overturned via its complaints procedure.
9. Whilst I acknowledge Mr X disagrees with the Council's decision to introduce the charges, we will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It has explained the decision was made in line with its processes. It is a decision the Council was entitled to make. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, as here, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to merit an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman