Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about non-receipt of parking permits. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to replace parking permits that he paid for and did not receive. Mr X also complains the Council’s response was rude and condescending and included red text in a larger font. Mr X wants the Council to replace the permits.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. 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. In March Mr X applied for parking permits for property (A) that he was not yet living in due to building work. The Council arranged delivery of the permits five days later, by courier, to property A.
5. The courier provided proof of delivery. This is a photograph of the envelope showing the address outside the front door of property (A). There is also a time stamp.
6. Mr X contacted the Council in May and said he had not received the permits. The Council said it would not issue a refund because the courier had provided proof of delivery. It said the colour of the front door in the photograph matched the description provided by Mr X. The Council also said, in red font which it had copied from another document, that missing permits must be reported within 28 days. The Council subsequently apologised for using red font and said no offence was intended.
7. Mr X says the photo does not prove delivery and would not stand up in court. He wants the Council to replace the permits.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has provided proof of delivery and, while I acknowledge Mr X says the photograph does not prove delivery, I find on the balance of probabilities it is sufficient to show delivery. The front door matches the description provided by Mr X and matches an image on ‘streetview’; there is no evidence to suggest the courier did not post the envelope through the door. And, while Mr X submits the permits were not delivered, it is also possible they were delivered and lost because Mr X was not living in property A and building work was going on. It is unlikely an investigation would result in a different outcome because we could not prove the permits were not delivered. In addition, Mr X did not report the loss until May.
9. Mr X has complained about the complaint replies and use of red font. I have not seen anything in the responses to suggest fault by the Council and the Council has apologised for using red font. Even if the Council had not apologised this is not an issue requiring an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman