Winchester City Council (18 016 741)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 11 Dec 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in processing his application for a parking permit. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint. It accepted fault, identified service improvements and offered a remedy. We cannot add to the investigation and the remedy offered is suitable.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in processing his application for a parking permit on the street where he lives. He said he asked for updates, but the Council made excuses and then ignored his complaints. Mr X could not park near his home for nine months as a result.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
  2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
  • it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
  • it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

  1. 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 read the complaint and the Council’s responses. This includes correspondence exchanged between the Council and Mr X.
  2. Mr X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. The Council offers parking permits for residents and their visitors to display when parking on the street outside their home.
  2. The Council’s website confirms residents of new build houses, or properties recently converted, may be restricted to a certain number of permits. Where a property has been developed or extended, the permit entitlement is shared between the resulting properties.
  3. At the time of Mr X’s application, residents living in the Inner Area of the city were entitled to one resident permit, one visitor permit and 20 visitor scratchcards per 12-month period. Residents living in the Outer Area of the city were entitled to two resident permits, two visitor permits and 20 visitor scratchcards per 12-month period.
  4. Permits were priced as follows:
    • First annual permit (resident or visitor) - £22.
    • Extra annual permit - £70.
    • Set of 10 visitor scratchcard permits - £13.

What happened

  1. Mr X applied for one resident parking permit, one visitor parking permit and 20 visitor scratchcards on 9 October 2018, at a cost of £118.
  2. Mr X contacted the Council on 12 November 2018 to say he had not received his permits. He said the parking office gave excuses why his application had not been processed. He asked for an apology, a parking permit and £75 redress.
  3. Mr X contacted the Council’s head of corporate communications on 26 November 2018 to complain. He said he had nowhere to park and the matter remained unresolved.
  4. Mr X complained to the Council’s chief executive on 17 December 2018. He said he applied for a parking permit four times and has been waiting over two months for a reply.
  5. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 4 February 2019. He said the Council told him they were looking into his application, but no one got back to him. He requested £250 redress, an apology and a parking permit. Mr X’s complaint was premature as the Council had not investigated it. The Ombudsman referred the complaint back to the Council.
  6. The Council sent its stage one complaint response on 23 May 2019. It apologised for the delay but said the process of deciding the number of permits allowed to residents in Mr X’s development was more complex than normal. It confirmed Mr X’s entitlement had been determined and his permits were issued. The Council said it hoped to confirm the position on visitors scratchcard permits shortly, but this had been referred to its legal team.
  7. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response so took his complaint to stage two of the procedure. He sought £250 redress as his complaint was unresolved for 193 days meaning he could not park in front of his home.
  8. The Council sent its stage two response on 12 July 2019. It repeated the process of deciding the permit entitlement of Mr X’s building was complex, due to the mix of properties which had different entitlement at the time of planning approval. It involved renovation, conversion and demolition of existing buildings. It said updates should have been clearer and more frequent and it gave its parking services team guidance on this for the future. The Council confirmed Mr X’s visitor scratchcard entitlement for the year and apologised for the inconvenience and delay. It offered Mr X a refund of the cost of the two permits he bought, as well as his visitor scratchcard entitlement for the year free of charge.
  9. Mr X responded to the Council on 17 July 2019. He thanked it for the apology but said a 9-month delay for a parking permit was unacceptable. He said the remedy offered was not enough to compensate him for the stress and inconvenience caused. He sought £250 compensation, or he would complain to the Ombudsman.
  10. The Council wrote to Mr X on 19 July 2019. It said it had told Mr X why it could not process his application more quickly. It accepted the process took longer than it should and apologised again for this. It said its goodwill gesture was reasonable and fair. It did not accept his demand for £250 compensation.
  11. Mr X brought his complaint back to the Ombudsman on 22 July 2019.

Back to top

Analysis

  1. Mr X’s parking permit application took far too long to resolve, and the Council did not keep Mr X updated. It did not explain the reasons for the delay until Mr X made a complaint. That was fault.
  2. The Council has now explained the delay in processing Mr X’s parking permit application and accepted this took too long. The Council apologised and offered Mr X free parking and guest permits as a remedy for the inconvenience and delay. It gave feedback to its parking services team to improve the way it communicates with, and updates, the public.
  3. Mr X is unhappy with the remedy on offer. He would like £250 compensation as well as the free parking permits and apology.
  4. The Ombudsman does not award compensation like a court. Our remedies aim to put people back into the position they would have been in if the fault had not occurred. Where this is not possible, we may ask the Council to make a payment to recognise the distress and inconvenience its fault caused. The payments we recommend are modest, symbolic payments which reflect the informal nature of our investigations.
  5. In this case, the remedy offered by the Council is in line with the remedy we would seek. The Council has admitted fault and identified service improvements. I cannot add to the investigation the Council has already carried out and I consider the remedy offered to be suitable. The Council has confirmed its offer remains open for Mr X to accept.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation. The Council has investigated Mr X’s complaint. It accepted fault, identified service improvements and offered a remedy. We cannot add to the investigation and the remedy offered is suitable.

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