Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking permit renewal because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s decision not to renew her parking permit. She wants a permit.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and information from the Council’s website. I considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The terms and conditions for parking permits say it is the responsibility of the permit holder to renew their permit on time. The Council sends reminders as a courtesy but the responsibility remains with the permit holder. There is a grace period which applies to people who submit their renewal before the expiry date.
5. The Council’s website says there is a waiting list for permits in some parking zones. Ms X lives in a zone where there is a waiting list.
6. Ms X’s permit expired at the end of July 2021. She was on holiday in August and tried to renew the permit around 22 August. She then spoke to an officer who explained she was on a waiting list because she had not renewed on time. Ms X has received Penalty Charge Notices because she parked in the permit zone after her permit had expired.
7. Ms X complained. She said she had not received a reminder and had had trouble getting through by phone and getting replies to emails. She had also received an email which led to her believe she would get a permit and could park without getting more PCNs. In response the Council accepted there had been communication difficulties and it explained the steps it was taking to improve the service. It also said it was planning to provide clearer information on its website about the waiting list. But, it also explained that none of these problems had affected Ms X’s renewal because she did not contact the Council until after the permit had expired. The Council confirmed it could not renew her permit and it could not say how long she would have to remain on the waiting list. It also explained that an email had been sent in error when the officer, during a phone call, opened the file for the expired permit to get Ms X’s details.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The terms and conditions say it is the responsibility of the permit holder to renew the permit regardless of whether they receive a reminder. Ms X did not renew her permit before it expired so there is no suggestion of fault in the Council’s decision to treat it as a new application. Ms X lives in an area where there is a waiting list so the Council correctly placed her on the waiting list.
9. Ms X has experienced some difficulties contacting the Council. But, this has not caused an injustice which requires an investigation. This is because the permit had expired before Ms X tried to contact the Council. Ms X says the automated email she received in error made her think she would get a permit. But, she does not say the email said a permit had been issued and this would have been at odds with what she was told on the phone regarding her place on the waiting list.

Back to top

Fina decision

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman