Summary: There was no significant fault by the Council. The wording of the parking permit requirements on the Council’s website and policy was imprecise in relation to the specific circumstances of the complainants. The Council has revised this wording but its decision that the complainants were not entitled to a permit was made without fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs X, complains they have been refused a car parking permit for reasons which are not in the Council’s policy.
2. Mrs X says she needs to take their disabled child to school by car and not having a permit means she often cannot park near the home. Mrs X wants the Council to issue the requested parking permit, apologise for its faults, including an apology from the officer who made the decision, and make renewing a parking permit easier.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

5. I read the papers put in by Mrs X and discussed the complaint with Mr X.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
7. Mr X and the organisation 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

8. Mrs X lives at a property in the Council’s area five days a week during term time. She owns another property and lives there at weekends and holidays. Mrs X insures her car at a property which is not in the permit area.
9. The Council’s online information about its residents’ parking permit scheme at the time Mrs X first complained said: ‘You can apply for a residents parking permit for the parking zone you live in if you: … live in that parking zone at least 5 days a week’.
10. The Council says the information Mrs X provided does not indicate she lives there for the relevant amount of time. It says the word ‘day’ in its policy refers to a 24-hour period, not only the daylight portion of each day.
11. In response to my enquiries, the Council has clarified the information on its website was not precise enough. It referred to residents needing to live in the property for 5 days per week. The Council has now corrected this on the website to 5 nights, as the Council’s written policy and the traffic regulation order refers to 5 nights.
12. The Council’s online information should have been clearer and it has now changed this. But Mrs X would not have received a residents’ parking permit under the Council’s policy as she does not meet the 5 night a week residency criteria. Mrs X has said that she spends her time equally between her two houses, so I can see how the Council felt she could not spend 5 nights per week in its area. However, if Mrs X has evidence she does spend 5 nights per week at the property she can resubmit this to the Council for it to consider.
13. I have considered whether the use of the word ‘days’ on the website rather than ‘nights’ was fault. On balance, I do not think it was. The wording was imprecise and it is good that the Council has corrected it, but I am not convinced the error was so significant to warrant a finding of fault.
14. The Council’s written policy says the applicant must meet the residency criteria with Council Tax verification. Mrs X can show that she pays Council Tax at the address.
15. Mrs X has said that to apply for a permit on the website you have to upload a copy of the vehicle insurance, which must show the car is insured at the address in the Council’s area. Mrs X’s car is insured at her other address so her application was declined as the vehicle is not insured at her address in the Council’s area.
16. The Council has said that ‘the vehicle insurance is not required for residency verification, it is required to ensure the insured vehicle is kept at the application address overnight thus substantiating the 5 night minimum requirement’. I will ask the Council to ensure the information on the website and policy are the same about the vehicle insurance for people with two homes.
17. Officers considered the information Mrs X provided and applied the terms and conditions of its parking permit scheme to reach their decision. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making, and its application of its residents’ parking permit requirements. I realise Mrs X and Mr X disagree with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
18. We recognise Mrs X may disagree with the terms of the Council’s adopted parking permit policy. Councils are entitled to create and adopt their own policies. We cannot overturn or go behind a council policy which has been properly adopted. The imprecise wording Mr and Mrs X complained about has been amended and is unlikely to affect many others so I do not consider service improvements are needed.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is not upheld as I have found no evidence of significant fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman