Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision her property is not eligible for a resident parking permit. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about the Council’s decision the property she is renting is not eligible for a resident parking permit.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and information on the Council’s website.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision the property she rents does not qualify for a resident parking permit and about its handling of the matter.
7. The Council initially issued Miss X with a resident parking permit when she moved to the property. However, it did so in error as the property does not qualify for any resident parking permits. This is because the property was converted to a residential property in 2017, several years after the parking zone was created.
8. The eligibility criteria for resident parking permits are published on the Council’s website. It states:

‘Eligibility for parking permits is determined prior to the introduction of a permit scheme for all residential properties in place at that time. The criteria for permit eligibility at the implementation stage of a permit scheme is:

• existing properties with off street parking are eligible for one annual permit per household, plus visitor cards;
• existing properties with no off street parking are eligible for two annual permits, per household, plus visitor cards;
• existing flats/apartments/businesses are not considered to be eligible for permits or visitor cards unless it is deemed appropriate when designing the scheme, before implementation.’

9. Once the Council became aware of its error, which came to light after Miss X tried to amend the permit, it told Miss X it would not rescind her existing permit. It allowed it to run for the full 12 months of issue. I note Miss X says the Council initially told her it would allow her to have the permit until the end of her tenancy. However, this is not what is indicated in the correspondence Miss X provided. The Council said it would not rescind the existing single permit (these are annual) but that the permit could be removed if there was a change of tenancy. The Council has acted in line with this.
10. This is not a complaint we will consider. There is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to issue any further resident permits to Miss X’s address as it has made its decision in line with the published eligibility criteria. Miss X’s address does not meet the published criteria as the property was converted after the permit scheme was put in place.
11. There was fault by the Council in issuing the original permit however, this did not cause any significant personal injustice to Miss X. Instead, Miss X benefited from the Council’s error as it meant she enjoyed the benefit of the permit for the full 12 months of its issue despite her not qualifying for it. As such, it is not a matter which would warrant an investigation by this office.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault causing injustice to Miss X. The Council was at fault in issuing the initial permit, but Miss X benefited from the Council’s fault and so it does not warrant an investigation. There is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision the property does not qualify for a resident parking permit as it does not meet the published eligibility criteria.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman