Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a duplicate parking permit. This is 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 she paid £35 for a parking permit she did not receive. She also complains the Council charges £7.50 to issue a duplicate permit. Ms X wants a full refund or a free replacement.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 the permit terms and conditions. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The permit terms and conditions state the Council will issue paper permits by post and does not accept responsibility for permits lost in the post. The rules also say the Council does not issue refunds and charges £7.50 to issue a duplicate permit. As part of the application process the applicant agrees to the terms and conditions.
5. Ms X applied for a visitor permit and paid £35. Ms X did not receive the permit and was told she would have to pay £7.50 for a replacement. Ms X complained and said she wanted a refund or free replacement. She said she had not received what she had paid for.
6. In response, the Council referred to the terms and conditions which Ms X had agreed to as part of the application process. It said it does not accept responsibility for items lost in the post, does not issue refunds, and charges £7.50 to issue replacements. It said it has to be consistent in how it applies the policy.
7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council’s decision not to issue a refund, but charge £7.50 for a replacement, is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. We do not act as an appeal body and cannot intervene because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.
8. I also will not investigate this complaint because Ms X can get a replacement permit by paying £7.50 and a dispute over £7.50 is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman