Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s parking permit renewal process. She said the Council took payment but then said her permit was cancelled. The refund the Council offered, and an apology is a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains the Council took payment for her renewal parking permit before it had expired and failed to respond to her queries or complaints.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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 discussed the complaint with Ms X and considered the information she provided. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents it provided. Ms X the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms X had a parking permit which the Council issued in 2022. As it was due to expire in August 2023, the Council sent Ms X a reminder in July to renew her permit.
6. The Council’s information online about how to renew a parking permit states that:
• You’ll be asked to provide proof of address and vehicle ownership for a resident’s, visitor or temporary permit once your application has been processed.
• If you're not eligible or you're found to have got a permit through deception, your permit will be cancelled, and you won't get a refund. You may also be liable to prosecution for fraudulently obtaining a permit.
7. Ms X applied to renew her permit in July 2023 and paid £51. The payment was taken when she applied. Ms X provided documents to confirm she was resident at her address. These were her V5C log book and letter from a hospital. However, they were not up to date and the hospital letter was not one of the forms of evidence the Council accepted to confirm residence.
8. The Council sent Ms X an email saying approved her permit. However, it says that due to the volume of applications it receives, it is not possible to verify every document before a permit is activated. It also says that the onus is on the resident to ensure they provide evidence that meets the criteria. It provides a list of the acceptable forms of proof on its website.
9. In August 2023 Ms X emailed the Council asking if the documents she had provided were satisfactory. She sent two further emails in August and September asking the same question, because the Council had not replied.
10. The Council replied in September. It said that the documents to prove residence should be dated within the last six months. This was not actually correct as documents should not be more than three months old.
11. Ms X asked why the Council had debited her bank account if her documents were not acceptable. She said she had chased the Council for four weeks. And she did not have more up to date documents.
12. The Council did not reply to Ms X’s query and so she chased the Council twice by email.
13. In October 2023 the Council replied that its permit application form stated that if an applicant was not eligible, or the permit was obtained by deception the Council could cancel the permit without a refund. It also said it could prosecute applicants who made fraudulent applications. The Council said it checked Ms X’s documents and they did not meet its criteria. It said that it had given Ms X every opportunity to provide the correct documentation, but she had not complied. The Council gave her 14 days to provide the documents dated within the last three months, or it would cancel her permit.
14. In October Ms X complained that the Council’s email was intimidating and threatening. She said she had reapplied promptly and had sent numerous emails querying the documents required as she did not have that information. But the Council had disregarded previous messages.
15. The Council replied that according to its policy It did not consider her concern should be treated as a complaint. It said that the issue related to an established Council policy. Its policy said that it could carry out random checks on permits. It repeated that Ms X should provide address evidence dated within the last three months or it would cancel her permit within 14 days.
16. Ms X complained further that the Council had taken £51 before her previous permit had expired and without authorisation. This was especially as it deemed the proof as she had sent was not satisfactory. She asked for a refund and costs for inconvenience.
17. The Council responded formally to Ms X’s complaint later in October. However, it repeated what it had already said.
18. In October Ms X complained that it was not ethical for the Council to take payment before it had verified her residence. She still had a permit that had not expired at that point. She said she had not used the permit and requested a refund of £51.
19. The Council did not reply to Ms X’s complaint, and so she chased a response in late November and early December 2023.
20. The Council finally replied in December 2023. It rejected her complaint because it said that it did not meet its criteria for a complaint.
21. In its response to my enquiries the Council said its officers considered it had responded and provided sufficient information. However, it accepts that it delayed responding until December, and did not reply to the points she raised about the way the case was managed or apologise for not responding to earlier questions.
22. The Council has offered to refund the fee of £51 to Ms X. It says it will update the payment page to advise that payment is taken at the time the permit renewal application is submitted. The Council also says that it is reviewing its process and how it communicates information to residents.

Analysis

23. The Council has accepted that its communication was poor because there were delays and it did not answer all Ms X’s points. It also did not accept her complaint when she had valid outstanding issues that it should have answered. There was fault by the Council in the way it handled matters.
24. In response to a draft version of this statement Ms X said the Council should pay her compensation for its poor communication in addition to the refund. However, I do not consider that the injustice caused by the Council’s fault warrants an additional remedy. This is because there was no fault by the Council in taking the payment of £51, and it was not required to refund it. The refund and apology is a suitable remedy for its delays in responding.
25. The Council has taken, or will take appropriate measures to improve its process.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. Within one month of my decision the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Ms X for its failure to respond to her queries and complaints
• Refund the parking permit fee of £51.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

28. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy for the injustice due to its fault. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman