Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his parking permit application. We have found fault by the Council in failing to provide open, clear and accurate information about its existing parking policy and how it was applied, causing Mr X injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising and making a payment to reflect his time and trouble. It has also agreed to issue Mr X with the visitors permit he requested as a goodwill gesture.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I am calling Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his parking permit application. He says the Council:

• wrongly refused his application for a visitors permit;
• provided misleading information about its residents’ parking policy;
• improperly interpreted and applied its policy to his property and application; and
• took account of incorrect and irrelevant information when considering his application

2. Mr X wants the Council to issue the visitor permit he requested, at no charge, to reflect the upset caused by its handling of his application. And confirm it will not obstruct any future requests for any residents or visitors permits for his property

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. 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, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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

6. I made enquiries of the Council and read the information Mr X and the Council provided about the complaint.
7. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Our published guidance on Good Administrative Practice

8. Our guidance sets out the standards we expect when we investigate a council’s actions.
9. We expect councils to be open and accountable. This includes being open and clear about policies and procedures and ensuring information, and any advice provided, is clear, accurate and complete.

The Council’s residents’ parking policy 2014

10. The Council’s published parking policy sets out its framework for introducing parking restrictions in residential areas (controlled parking zones) and eligibility for parking permits in these zones.
11. The policy includes Policy Statements RP12 and RP14.
12. RP12 says properties within Residential Parking Schemes are normally eligible for parking permits if;

• The property has a discrete postal address within the defined boundary of the zone;
• An eligible vehicle is registered to the property;
• Where the qualifying property either is within a Zone without deduction in entitlement for off-road parking or where entitlement remains after any appropriate deduction for off road parking;
• The primary or dominant purpose of the property is residential and not commercial or business use; and
• The property is not ineligible in the basis it was built or subdivided after a set date (see Policy Statement RP14)

13. RP14 says the Council will exclude properties with planning approval (for build or sub-division) post to 31 March 2001 from entitlement to resident and visitor permits unless agreed on an exceptional basis. Any assessment of a request for an exceptional provision for permit entitlement for new developments may take into account certain factors. The issue of any form of permit entitlement will remain at the discretion of the Council.

What happened

Background

14. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened.
15. Mr X moved into a property in one of the Council’s controlled parking zones. The property was part of a building built before 2000. In about 2000 the property was converted into three residential flats and one commercial office. In 2020, planning permission was given to convert the commercial office into a residential flat. This is the property in which Mr X now lives.

Mr X’s application for a parking permit

16. In April 2021 Mr X applied to the Council for visitors parking permits.
17. A customer services officer told Mr X no parking permits were allowed for his property because:

• The Council’s parking entitlement register confirmed his property was built/adapted after April 2001 when parking restrictions came into force.
• Any new build properties, subdivisions or redevelopment of existing properties, (including change of use) since 1 April 2001 are subject to maximum, rather than minimum, parking provisions to comply with government rules about sustainable parking policy
• Mr X’s property was a post 2001 development and fell within the above rules. The Council did not issue on-street parking permits to any properties meeting these criteria.

18. Mr X, and his disability support on his behalf, questioned this. They said his property had not been built or sub-divided after April 2001. There did not appear to be any reason why his property did not qualify for parking permits.
19. The Council again said the policy applied to new build properties, subdivisions and redevelopment of existing properties, including change of use, since April 2001. His property was included in the rules because it had been granted change of use in 2020.
20. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response. He referred to the parking policy wording (RP12 and RP14) stating the exclusion applied to properties built or subdivided since 1 April 2001 and did not include the terms “change of use” or “redevelopment”. He said the Council was wrongly adding words to the policy to extend the exclusion to his property.
21. The Council’s Parking Service Manager replied and said:

• The planning documents for the 2020 planning application for Mr X’s property noted it was submitted as a car-free development.
• Parking Services would not issue parking permits for the property as this would be contrary to the basis on which planning permission had been granted.

Mr X’s complaint

22. Mr X complained to the Council about its response to his application. He said:

• Parking Services were being unreasonable in the way it had dealt with his application. His property was not built or subdivided since April 2001 and so not within the disqualifying criteria.
• The planning permission did not require the property to be a car-free scheme or exclude it from eligibility for parking permits. It did not include any restrictions about on-street parking.

The Council’s stage one complaint response

23. This was completed by the Council’s Parking Service Manager. The complaint was not upheld because:

• Policy Statement RP14 said properties with planning approval for build or sub-division post 31 March 2001 were excluded from entitlement to parking permits unless agreed on an exceptional basis.
• The Council’s parking policy is clear that any new properties with planning approval after 31 March 2001 will not be entitled to a resident or visitor permit.
• Assessment of a request for a parking permit for a new development on an exceptional basis may take into account a number of matters.
• With regard to discretionary entitlement, Policy Statement RP19 said where an exceptional circumstance is not met by an existing permit provision, a provisional permit to meet this need may be issued at the Council’s discretion. These requests would be judged on their own merits and subject to review.
• The manger had not, as yet, been provided with details of any exceptional circumstances in Mr X’s case. The Council would give consideration to any representation about this if it was demonstrated a parking need is not met by existing parking provisions with the local area.

24. The Council accepted the submission of the planning proposal as a car-free scheme did not in itself exclude the property from access to the permit scheme.
25. Mr X was not satisfied with the stage one response. He asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two. He added the Parking Service had not informed him about the possibility of applying for a permit on the basis of exceptional circumstances until the stage one response.

The Council’s stage two complaint response

26. This was completed by the Council’s Complaints Resolution Manger in July 2021. He did not uphold the complaint because:

• The Parking Service Manager was the decision maker in matters of parking policy. The current manager had held this role since 2016. The manager’s view was the term “change of use” had the same effect, with regard to the parking situation in the zone in which Mr X lived, as “planning approval (for build or sub-division) post to 31 March 2001”
• The manager had been consistent in his consideration of similar “change of use” permit applications. As the Council’s decision maker in matters of parking, the manager was entitled to make this decision as the policy states “the issue of any form of permit entitlement will remain at the discretion of the Council”
• The initial response by customer service officers was taken from the information provided to them by managers to help them answer frequently asked questions from the public, including questions about entitlement to parking permits. The officers who provided the Council’s initial responses to Mr X’s request had followed this wording.

27. Mr X was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us.

My findings – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

28. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We can only decide whether there was fault in the way it was reached.
29. And it is not our role to tell a council what its policy is or how to interpret it. But we will consider whether a council has been clear and open about its policies and procedures in accordance with the standards in our published guidance.
30. Based on the evidence provided, my view is the Council did not meet our expected standard of good administrative practice when considering Mr X’s application for a parking permit. I do not consider it was open and clear, or provided accurate information, about its existing policy and the changes it says it has made to the categories of properties ineligible for parking permits. In my view this is fault.
31. The reasons for my view are:

• The wording in the Council’s published parking policy excluding properties from eligibility for parking permits is specific. It excludes properties with planning approval (for build or sub-division) post to 31 March 2001. It does not say it excludes properties with planning approval for a change of use post 31 March 2001.
• But the Council says its Parking Services Manager has exercised his discretion to add the term “change of use” to the policy wording. On this basis, the Council has excluded from eligibility for parking permits not only properties with planning approval for build or sub-division from 1 April 201, but also properties with planning permission for change of use.
• I have not seen any evidence the existing published policy says the Council may add properties with other types of planning approval to this exclusion.
• The Council has not provided any written evidence of the process by which it made its decision to start excluding properties with other types of planning approval, in addition to those stated in its published policy.
• The Council has not provided any evidence to support its statement the Parking Services Manager has consistently applied this additional exclusion to parking permit applications since 2016, as stated in its stage two response.

32. I consider this fault caused Mr X injustice. He applied for a parking permit on the basis of the information the Council published about eligibility for permits under its existing parking policy. As this information did not say anything about other categories of planning approval, he reasonably expected his property was eligible.
33. This has caused Mr X uncertainty as to whether his application has been properly considered. He, together with his disability support, also had to spend time and trouble challenging the Council’s reasons for its decision.
34. I also note, from the extract of its Parking Entitlement Register, provided by the Council, Mr X’s property is still recorded as a business property with two parking spaces. This information is out of date. I consider the Council’s failure to update this is fault. Although this does not appear to have caused Mr X injustice with his current application, as the Council is aware of the change to residential use, the record should be corrected for future reference.

Agreed action

35. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• apologise in writing to Mr X for its fault in failing to be open and clear and provide accurate information about its existing parking policy and how it is applied.
• pay Mr X £150 to acknowledge the time and trouble its fault caused him. This is a symbolic amount based on our published remedies guidance.
• issue Mr X with a visitors permit, as he requested, as a goodwill gesture.

36. And within three months from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• review its policy and procedures regarding eligibility for parking permits and the information and guidance it publishes to ensure the policy and process is open, clear and accurate.
• update its Parking Entitlement Register to ensure its record for Mr X’s property is correct.

37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has completed the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have found fault by the Council causing injustice. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council will carry out the above actions as a suitable way to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman