Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the introduction of a car club scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about the introduction of a car club scheme. She says the Council did not publicise the proposal or follow the correct process. She says the scheme has caused anti-social behaviour (ASB) and nobody, including businesses, knew anything about it. She also says nobody in the Council was aware of the scheme.

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 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and photographs of the street notice. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council introduced a car club scheme in 2004 and has been rolling it out across the city. In 2020 it issued a questionnaire; some of the responses indicated a demand for a club in Ms X’s area. Feedback to the car club provider also indicated a wish to extend the scheme to the area.
5. In 2023 the Council considered a plan to extend the scheme to Ms X’s area. It advertised the proposal on street notices and its website. I have seen photographs of the notice. The Council did not receive any objections but reviewed the proposal in response to feedback. The scheme was agreed and became operational in June. A second bay for the scheme was added due to its popularity.
6. Ms X was unaware of the scheme until it was introduced. She contacted many departments but nobody in the Council could give her any information. She then complained; her complaints included that the Council had not informed residents or businesses, that the scheme had caused a loss of parking and an increase in ASB, and that the Council had not followed the correct process.
7. The Council explained the background to the scheme. It said it followed the correct process by advertising the scheme and reviewing it in response to feedback. It said information from residents had shown a wish to extend the scheme and it confirmed it did put up notices. It said it had visited and found no evidence of ASB or poor parking but it would ask for increased support from enforcement officers. The Council accepted its initial response to Ms X had not been adequate and said it had reminded officers to provide information at the first point of contact. The Council said it should have consulted directly with local businesses and will do this going forward.
8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Ms X was unaware of the proposal and doubts the Council advertised it. But, I have seen copies of the notices and, on balance, the evidence suggests they were displayed. In addition, some people gave feedback which shows some were aware. The Council says it should have done more to consult with businesses but, even if this had happened, it is impossible to say the outcome would have been different. The Council has not found evidence to support Ms X’s statement about poor parking and ASB but it has responded appropriately by arranging for extra support from enforcement officers.
9. The Council agrees its response to Ms X when she first made enquiries was inadequate but this happened after the decision to extend the scheme had been made and did not have any impact on the outcome. Whilst the Council should have provided a better response this is not a level of fault which requires an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman