Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to renew a parking permit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision not to renew his parking permit. He wants the Council to allow him to buy another 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, 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 Mr X. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Residents who live in car free developments cannot buy on-street or visitor parking permits.
5. Mr X is a Housing Association tenant. In 2020 he decided to buy a car because he and his wife have health conditions and needed to avoid public transport during the pandemic. He bought a parking permit and a car.
6. Mr X renewed the permit in 2021 but the Council refused the renewal in 2022. In response to his complaint the Council explained that he lives in a relatively new development which has planning conditions prohibiting occupiers from applying for parking permits. Specifically, part of the planning permission says, “no occupier shall apply for a parking permit.” The Council explained that the permits which were issued in 2020 and 2021 were issued in error due to a system failure. It said the error has been fixed and it apologised for the inconvenience. The Council confirmed Mr X cannot have a permit because he lives in a car free development and this should have been pointed out by his landlord when he rented the property.
7. Mr X says he and his wife need a car for health reasons and they cannot manage without a car. He is renting a private parking space which is more expensive than buying a permit. Mr X says the Council has ignored his family’s circumstances and he wants to buy a permit.
8. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons. The Council’s decision not to renew the permit reflects the planning consent which prohibits occupiers of Mr X’s development from having permits. The decision reflects the planning consent so there is no suggestion of fault in that decision.
9. There was fault in 2020 and 2021 because the Council issued permits in error; it wrongly issued permits for a car free development. However, while this should not have happened, it has not caused an injustice requiring an investigation. This is because the error meant Mr X benefitted from having a permit he was not entitled to (through no fault of his own) and the current refusal reflects the decision that should have been made in 2020. I acknowledge the family’s health conditions but this does not mean the Council can issue a permit in contravention of the planning consent.
10. Mr X could explore if he or his wife would qualify for a Blue Badge. If they did qualify, and I do not know if they would, it might help their parking situation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman