Summary: Mr X complains the Council refused to renew his residents parking permit. Mr X lives in a car free development and those residents are not entitled to free parking permits. The Council therefore issued the parking permit in error. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s decision to withdraw the permit once it realised its error.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has refused to renew his parking permit and said it had previously issued him with a permit in error. He says that he would not have rented the property if he had known he was not entitled to a permit. He also complains that the Council said that either the landlord failed to advise him of the permit free status or that Mr X was aware but applied anyway. Mr X feels that the Council has accused him of fraud.
2. Mr X says that he will either have to move or rent a private parking area and both incur a significant cost.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have spoken to Mr X and considered the information he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. I gave Mr X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and invited their comments. I considered the comments I received before reaching this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
7. In July 2009 planning permission was approved for the development where Mr X now lives. The decision by the planning inspectorate stated, “There are residents’ parking controls in the area, and the unilateral undertaking submitted for the appellants would prohibit occupiers from applying for residents’ parking permits”. A section 106 agreement imposed on the planning permission made it a car free development.
8. In mid-2012 the Council moved to a new permit system to allow residents to submit online applications for parking permits. Properties that were subject to a section 106 agreement and therefore classified as a permit free development were not entered onto the system. The reason for this was to prevent residents and or tenants at these properties from making an online application for a parking permit.
9. Mr X entered into a four-year lease on an apartment in or around mid-2017. He says that before signing the lease agreement he checked the parking arrangements with the Council and was told that W3 was the controlled parking zone for the property.
10. In July 2017 Mr X made an application for a resident permit for use within W3 controlled parking zone. The application was approved by the Council. A year later he made an application to renew the permit. Again, the Council approved the application and Mr X was issued with a permit until August 2019.
11. In February 2019 the Council identified that W3 controlled parking zone had been entered onto its electronic system in error. Because of this, permits had been incorrectly issued to Mr X (and other residents) for use in the W3 controlled parking zone. The Council established that the development where Mr X lives is in controlled parking zone 3F. However, because of the section 106 agreement in place Mr X (and other residents) were not eligible to purchase a resident permit.
12. The Council wrote to Mr X in February 2019 and explained what had happened. It said that Mr X would not be able to renew his permit once it expired on 8 August 2019. Mr X says he never received this letter.
13. In July 2019 Mr X contacted the Council and said he had not received a renewal reminder for his permit and was told that he was no longer eligible to purchase one. The Council provided Mr X with a copy of the letter sent on 23 February 2019. It also said that:

• It had agreed to issue a permit to Mr X until 8 February 2020;
• It acknowledged that the initial permit was issued in error;
• Mr X should review the details of his lease agreement to determine whether the landlords or their agents advised him of the property’s permit free status, as they were legally required to advise him prior to signing the lease agreement;
• It was satisfied that parking services had taken more than reasonable steps to mitigate the error in issuing the initial permit and despite advising him of this in February 2019 it had agreed to issue him with a further permit for use until February 2020;

14. The Council also said “As you have subsequently applied for a permit at this address, it can only be concluded that either the landlord failed to advise you of the permit free status of this property prior to you signing the lease, resulting in your subsequent application for a permit in 2017, or, even though you were aware of the permit free status of the property, you chose to disregard the landlords advise and made an application for a residents permit, which was then issued in error by a member of the permits team”. Mr X says he never received this letter.
15. Mr X complained to the Council and also said that the Council had accused him of fraud. The Council responded to Mr X at stage 1 and 2 of its complaint procedure. It maintained its position about the residents permit and apologised for incorrectly issuing a permit in 2017 and 2018. In response to Mr X’s view that the Council had accused him of fraud, the Council explained that the officer concerned was trying to convey his understanding as to what had happened to lead Mr X to apply for a permit in the first instance.
16. Mr X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman. He said that information available on the Council’s website was still misleading. He explained that the interactive parking map showed the development located in controlled parking zone W3. However, static maps for the area showed the development in controlled parking zone 3F.

Back to top

Analysis

17. It is Mr X’s view that the Council should grant him with a permit until the end of his tenancy.
18. The planning documents clearly set out that the development was to be car free.
19. I am satisfied that the Council wrongly issued Mr X with a perking permit when he applied in 2017 and then again in 2018. At the time the Council’s permit system recognised that Mr X lived within a controlled parking zone which would qualify him for a permit. Therefore, the Council was at fault in issuing the permit in the first instance. However, I do not consider Mr X suffered any injustice because of this error, in fact he has received the benefit of a parking permit he should not have received for over 2 and half years. Therefore, I cannot criticise the Council for not renewing the permit once it identified its error. I find that the Council has acted reasonably by granting Mr X with a permit for his use until February 2020.
20. I acknowledge Mr X’s point that the Council’s website provides conflicting information on the location of his property and whether it is in controlled parking zone W3 or 3F. However, I am not persuaded that this causes Mr X any injustice because the planning documents and section 106 agreement specify that residents are not eligible to purchase a resident permit, regardless of the zone.
21. Mr X says that he would not have rented the property if he had known he was not entitled to a permit. He said he checked with the Council before he signed the lease agreement. I accept that this may have informed Mr X’s decision, however the landlord and/or estate agent should have made Mr X aware of the parking restrictions before he signed the lease.
22. I understand why Mr X felt that the Council was accusing him of fraud by applying for a permit in 2017. The Council has clarified that this was not its intention and it was trying to convey its understanding as to what had happened to lead Mr X to apply for a permit in the first instance. The Council accepts that its comment could have been worded better. I recognise that Mr X was greatly upset by the comment, but I am satisfied with the Council’s explanation and apology.

Back to top

Final decision

23. Based on the evidence seen, I do not uphold Mr X’s complaint. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman