Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to advise him correctly about whether the property he was purchasing would be eligible for a parking permit. Less than a month after Mr B enquired, the Council introduced a change to the rules which meant the property would not be eligible for a parking permit. Mr B only discovered this two years later when he tried to obtain one. We found the Council should have advised Mr B about the imminent change. We consider this caused him frustration and raised expectation that he would be able to obtain a parking permit. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £150.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that Cambridgeshire County Council (the Council), when advising him in May 2020 about parking permit eligibility for a property he wished to purchase, failed to notify him that the relevant Traffic Regulation Order was due to change in a matter of weeks and the property from that date would not be eligible for a parking permit. This raised Mr B’s expectation when he bought the property in July 2020 that he would be able to park a car nearby. He has been caused distress and inconvenience since the Council refused a permit in September 2022.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B 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

5. Mr B was in the process of buying a property in the Council’s area. In May 2020 he contacted the Council to ask if the property would be eligible for a parking permit. The Council’s parking services team replied on 12 May 2020 saying:

“I have received a response from the policy team in relation to this, after considering the information they have provided in relation to the relevant TRO and the policy document, I can confirm that this property would be eligible to apply for resident permits. If an applicant can provide the documents required to demonstrate this is their main residence and that the property does not have access to any off-street parking within a development (if appropriate), a permit could be issued in this instance”.

6. The Council has confirmed that if Mr B had applied for a permit at this point for this property, he would have received one.
7. The purchase completed in July 2020, but Mr B did not need to apply for a permit for some time. By September 2022 his circumstances had changed and he needed to park near his property, so he applied for a permit. The Council refused his application.
8. Mr B queried the refusal with the Council. The Council responded on 3 October 2022. It said the Council had done a planned reviewed of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) relating to parking in the area and decided to introduce a new TRO. The new TRO came into force in June 2020, superseding the original TRO. It included a change that all dwellings constructed or created after the date the original parking scheme was introduced (1991) were not eligible for parking permits regardless of whether they had access to off-street parking. So, his property was not eligible for a permit.
9. Mr B then made a formal complaint saying he felt the Council misled him by not telling him in May 2020 that a new TRO was due to come into force the following month. He said there was no evidence the Council consulted with or informed those affected by the changes. The Council did not uphold his complaint saying that Council policies can and do change and over two years had elapsed since Mr B bought the property.
10. Mr B escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s procedure saying that he was given an unambiguous response in May 2020 that his property would be eligible for a parking permit. It was not subject to any caveat or condition. It seemed unfair that less than a month later the Council changed its policy without any consultation or notification.
11. The Council replied saying that the parking review had been agreed in 2017. In October 2019 its solicitor had recommended that the TRO should match the content of the Council’s parking policies. The Council produced a consolidated TRO which came into force on 19 June 2020 with a notice published in the local press and online. It also said:

“On reflection, I consider that the email you received could’ve helpfully included a caveat advising that policies are subject to change / that the order was likely to be reviewed, though I do not consider the facts of the email to have been misleading.”

12. The Council offered him three visitor permits which allowed for a total of 15 visits.
13. Mr B remained unhappy and escalated his complaint to stage three of the Council’s procedure. The Council responded highlighting the exact nature of the change in the new TRO.
14. Mr B complained to us.
15. The Council, in response to my enquiries, said that it had introduced a consolidation order to regularise a number of amendments which had been made to the TRO between 2017 and 2020 and to ensure the TRO matched the Council’s adopted parking policy on property redevelopment. It said this was normal practice when a TRO covered a large geographical area and was an opportunity to rectify any minor anomalies. Resident parking permits last for a year.
16. It said it did not have to consult on the changes as it was a consolidation order. It said in May 2020 several of the officers in the policy and regulation team had been deployed to other service areas due to COVID-19 and so the parking services team who responded to Mr B’s query were unaware of the impending changes. It says there are a few unrestricted on-street parking places 5 to 10 minutes from Mr B’s house, some pay and display bays within a similar distance costing £16 for a day’s parking Monday to Saturday and a multi-storey car park costing £28 for 24 hours parking.
17. Mr B said he has been using visitor permits in the interim. He can only apply for 20 per year, they cost £12 each and provide five days of parking. Between September 2022 and March 2023, he spent £195 on visitor permits and received two £50 parking fines. When he is able to, he parks his car outside the city centre where free on-street parking is available. It is a 25 to 30 minute walk from his property. Aside from the inconvenience of this he is concerned about the security of his car. He says there is a never a problem finding a space near his house when he does use a visitor’s permit.

Analysis

18. Before Mr B completed the purchase of his property, he asked the Council if the property was eligible for a parking permit. The Council, without any caveat or condition, said it was likely to be eligible for a parking permit. Mr B went ahead and completed the purchase with this information. I consider the availability of a parking permit was a factor, but not the only one, in his decision to buy the property.
19. Given that the Council had been carrying out a review of the TRO for some time, it was aware in May 2020 that the introduction of the new order was due in a matter of weeks and that it may affect applications for parking permits. I consider the Council’s parking services team should have made wider enquiries in response to Mr B’s query and given a more accurate answer. Mr B would then have been able to make a fully informed decision about whether to complete the purchase of the property. The failure to do so was fault.
20. It has caused Mr B injustice because he discovered at a much later date that he cannot have a parking permit and there are limited alternative viable parking options.
21. However, I consider his injustice is limited to frustration and raised expectation because even if he had been eligible for a parking permit, it would only have lasted for a year. Changes affecting his eligibility could have happened at any time during that period and he did wait over two years before applying for one.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr B, I recommended the Council within one month of the date of my final decision, pays him £150.
23. I do not consider any service improvements are necessary because the situation was very specific to Mr B’s circumstances, the fault occurred at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic and the Council’s website now makes clear reference to the change.
24. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Mr B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman