Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider his application for a parking permit before rejecting it. We find fault with the Council for not addressing Mr X’s points, causing him frustration, time and trouble. We have agreed a remedy to re-consider the application.

The complaint

1. Mr X had a visitors permit which was withdrawn as the Council said it was issued in error. It then refused his application for a parking permit.
2. Mr X complains it has been rejected incorrectly, and the issues he raised in his complaint were not addressed by the Council.
3. As a result Mr X suffered frustration, and the time and trouble of bringing his complaint to the Council and then the Ombudsman.
4. Mr X would like his complaint to be considered properly, and a parking permit issued to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

8. I have considered:
• The information provided by Mr X and in discussion with him;
• The Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided; and
• Relevant law and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

The Consolidation of Traffic Regulations Order 2003 (TRO)

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. Part II of the TRO covers parking places on roads as defined by the Schedules.
12. If parking a ‘residents vehicle’ on such a road you have to display a parking permit; and a ’residents vehicle’ with a permit is exempt from the time restrictions.
13. Section 31(1) says “Any resident or owners of premises whose normal residence is at premises the postal address of which is specified in columns 5 and/or 6 of Schedules 1 to 22 inclusive …” can apply for a permit. If the Council is satisfied 31(2) says the Council “may” issue one permit.
14. Designation or use of parking places are for “Any resident or owners of premises whose normal residence is at premises (at streets named in the TRO)”.
15. It defines a resident as “a person who is permanently residing (being a freeholder, leaseholder or tenant but not a lodger or licensee of any such premises) at an address which abuts or is adjacent to one of the roads comprising parking places as set out in Schedules 2 and 3 to this Order."
16. Section 37 says “At the discretion of the Council, a parking permit or visitors parking permit may be issued to any person who is not a resident for use on a vehicle of the specified class set out in Article 4 when parked in the parking places set out in Schedules 1 to 22 inclusive to this Order.” In other words the Council has discretion to issue a permit any person who is not a resident in the streets named in the TRO.

What Happened

17. Mr X applied to the Council for a visitors parking permit in May 2019 as his property was being renovated. The Council granted Mr X the permit. He applied for a renewal the following year.
18. In 2021 when Mr X’s renovations were complete, he applied to the Council for a vehicle specific resident parking permit.
19. Mr X did not receive a response so he chased the Council for his permit. The Council responded the following day saying the visitors permit had been issued in error and would be revoked. It explained only properties which are included in the scheme are entitled to obtain parking permits. Mr X’s address is not included in the TRO and therefore is not in the Council’s resident parking scheme.
20. Mr X said he was not asking for a parking permit for the road where he lives. This road is “adjacent” to the roads mentioned in the TRO (as per paragraph 15 above) where parking permits are available.
21. Mr X says therefore by virtue of being a “resident” or by virtue of the Council’s discretion he would be entitled to a residents parking permit.
22. The Council responded the next day saying he was a “resident” but his address is not one of the named postal addresses.
23. The Council said if he defines himself as a non-resident applying for discretion, to issue a permit for the road where Mr X lives “would set a precedent for other residents and therefore is not able to be agreed to at this time”.
24. Mr X disagreed, saying the TRO says the applicant must be either a resident, or an owner of premises in the streets names in the TRO, not both. Also, he was not applying for a permit for the road where he lives.
25. Mr X says there are only a few residential properties on the street where he lives, so setting a “precedent” should not be a significant issue. Further, he said it was wrong to refuse on the grounds of setting a precedent as this was what applying discretion would do.
26. Following the Council’s final response, Mr X submitted a complaint in December saying he believes the grounds of refusal of the parking permit were based on incorrect interpretations of the relevant parts of the TRO.
27. The Council’s first complaint response to Mr X went back to the view that the road where Mr X lives is not included in the parking permit scheme so they cannot issue him a permit.
28. Mr X then issued a stage two complaint stating again that he was not applying for a permit on the road where he lives, he is a “resident” as defined in the TRO, or if the Council disagree it can use its’ discretion to issue a parking permit for the roads that are mentioned in the TRO.
29. The Council’s final response to Mr X, and in response to the Ombudsman, says his address is not part of the residential parking scheme so he does not qualify for a parking permit.
30. Mr X then brought his complaint to the Ombudsman, saying the Council failed to acknowledge all his points.

Analysis

Resident parking permit

31. Mr X says he lives at this address a third of the time, and it would seem the Council agree he is a resident according to the response in paragraph 22 above.

Discretion

32. The Council say there is no discretion to issue a permit on the road where Mr X lives. The discretion only applies to locations listed where addresses have been named in the TRO as exempt from the parking restrictions.
33. Mr X is not applying for a permit on the road where he lives, but on the roads where parking permits are available. Section 37 makes it clear the Council has discretion to issue a permit “…to any person who is not a resident …”. There is no evidence that the Council have considered this so I find fault as the response is inadequate and has caused Mr X frustration.
34. I suggest the Council review Mr X’s application. If the Council agree Mr X is a resident as defined in the TRO, it may (under section 31(2)) issue him a parking permit.
35. If Mr X is not a resident, then the Council should consider if it should exercise its discretion under Section 37 and issue a parking permit.
36. Whatever the outcome of the Council’s decision, it must give a clear and reasoned response, taking into account Mr X’s points above.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. Within one month of the final decision the Council should reconsider Mr X’s application for a parking permit, and provide him with a detailed response.
38. Within three months of the final decision the Council should have guidance on how discretion is exercised, if none already exists.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence the above has been carried out.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I find fault with the Council in not considering Mr X’s application fully, and have suggested Mr X’s application is reconsidered with a full response.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman