Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council removing her from a reserved parking space waiting list. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council unfairly removed her from its reserved parking space waiting list for her holiday let property because it used a process that was not effective in contacting her to check she wanted to remain on the list.

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. (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 the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X complained the Council unfairly removed her from a reserved parking space waiting list for one of its car parks because it used a process that was not effective in contacting her.
7. Mrs X asked the Council to reinstate her place on the waiting list. She had been on it for almost 8 years and not having a parking space near to her holiday let property has a significant impact on bookings. She said the Council had her main address as it sends annual business rates letters there and so it should have used that address to contact her.
8. The Council did not uphold Mrs X’s complaint. It explained it wrote to her at the address she provided on her waiting list request via Royal Mail recorded delivery. Royal Mail made two unsuccessful attempts to deliver the letter. It was sent to the depot but it was not collected within 18 days and so Royal Mail returned it to the Council as undelivered.
9. It also emailed Mrs X at the email address she provided to check whether she wanted to remain on the waiting list. It did not receive a response. It subsequently removed Mrs X from its waiting list. It explained it only sends correspondence to the email and postal addresses applicants provide in order to maintain consistency and confidentiality. The Council explained Mrs X would remain on the waiting list but it would not reinstate her previous position on the list.
10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here. It took suitable steps to contact Mrs X and used the contact details Mrs X provided on her waiting list request. The letter was sent by recorded delivery to the address provided and the email again was sent to the only email address provided on the matter. There is no sign of fault in the Council not using her home address for correspondence as that is not the address she provided on the matter. Whilst Mrs X did not receive the Council’s correspondence there is no evidence to suggest this was caused by any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman