LGO raps council for failure to publicise adequately new car parking charges

The Local Government Ombudsman has criticised a district council for failing to publicise adequately new charges for blue badge holders and evening users of its car parks.

Finding that there had been maladministration causing injustice, Dr Jane Martin said Cherwell District Council did not do enough to raise awareness prior to introduction of the charges.

The LGO launched an investigation after receiving complaints from five people. Four were blue badge holders who lived outside the area but used the car parks with varying degrees of frequency. The fifth complainant used one of Cherwell’s car parks once a week in the evening.

The five people had all been handed excess charge notices (ECNs) within a period of ten days after Cherwell introduced the charges on 4 April 2011.

The Ombudsman found that Cherwell had made some efforts to raise awareness of the changes to its charging policy. However, Dr Martin said the local authority did not take into account sufficiently that people outside the area would be affected and be unaware of the publicity.

The LGO upheld the complaints in four cases. In the other case, covering the Market Car Park in Bicester, she considered that Cherwell had provided reasonable publicity.

Dr Martin recommended that Cherwell either reimburse each successful complainant the £80 paid for the ECN or cancel the ECN where it remained unpaid.

The Ombudsman did not review – and did not criticise – Cherwell’s decision to introduce parking charges for blue badge holders.

On the finding of maladministration, Dr Martin said: “The Council failed to take into account the fact that blue badge holders and evening users would have had no reason to use the ticket machine and, therefore any notice displayed there would have been futile in terms of notifying them of any change.”

The LGO said Cherwell had put things right after the ten-day period. She added: “I have received a number of other complaints relating to ECNs issued after the erection of the temporary signs. Each has been considered on its merits and I have determined that they should not be pursued based on the specific circumstances of each and the level of publicity of the charging policy at the time.”