London Borough of Bromley (18 013 530)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 08 Apr 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained the Council gave him wrong advice about his eligibility for a residents’ parking permit. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault for the advice it gave to Mr X and has apologised for this. This is sufficient remedy for raising Mr X’s expectations. There is no outstanding injustice as Mr X does not live in the controlled parking zone.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complained the Council gave him wrong advice about his eligibility for a residents’ parking permit and it affected his decision to buy his current home. He says the Council initially told him he was eligible for a permit but, after he bought his home, the Council has now said he is not eligible for a permit. Mr X says the issue is critical because he and his wife need the residents’ parking for their commute to work.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
  2. If we are satisfied with a council’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

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered information from Mr X’s complaint and from a telephone conversation with him. Mr X has provided details of the Council’s advice to him and its responses to him through its complaints procedure.
  2. I gave Mr X and the Council the opportunity to comment on this draft decision and have taken account of the comments received.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr X bought his house in August 2016. The house has a garage and a drive. It also has a designated parking space on land opposite it. Mr X only uses the drive for parking. He says space is too tight to use the space opposite without causing problems for other residents.
  2. Mr X’s house is not in a residents’ parking zone. A residents’ parking zone starts nearby and extends to streets close to a railway station.
  3. Mr X says his house is a 10 -15 minutes walk from the railway station. He says his main concern is that, for work, he anticipated parking within the residents’ parking zone close to the station. He says that would have saved time and parking fees and, on days when he works in the evenings, taxi fares. He could also have used the permit when he had visitors.
  4. The evidence Mr X has provided shows he asked about eligibility for a resident’s parking permit in October 2016, after he bought his house. The October 2016 advice said his property was within a controlled parking zone and he was entitled to a permit. It advised him to apply for a permit online.
  5. Mr X later applied for a permit but was told he was not eligible for one. He checked this with the Council in August 2018. The same day the Council confirmed his house was not in a controlled parking zone and he was not eligible for a permit.
  6. Mr X then made a complaint to the Council. Through its complaints procedure the Council:
    • confirmed his house had never been eligible for residents’ parking permits;
    • apologised if he had been given advice to the contrary;
    • accepted it had caused inconvenience and distress; but
    • despite any wrong guidance, his house was not eligible for a permit and the Council could not provide one.

Findings

  1. The Council was at fault as it gave wrong advice to Mr X in October 2016. However this was after Mr X had bought his house. So I have seen no evidence that Mr X acted to his detriment because of wrong advice from the Council.
  2. The Council raised Mr X’s expectation that he would get a parking permit. However he is not in the controlled parking zone so he is not entitled to a permit. The Council has already apologised to Mr X for the impact of the wrong advice in its response to his complaint and this is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have now completed my investigation. The Council was at fault and has already apologised. This was an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings