Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about parking permits. This is because an investigation by this office would not add to the responses the Council has already provided via its own previous investigation of the matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council provided inaccurate information about his eligibility for a resident parking permit and about the impact of this.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) and (7) as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained the Council provided incorrect information about his eligibility for a parking permit when he moved to a new property in the Council’s area earlier this year.
7. The Council reviewed its contact with Mr X on the matter. It said it initially told Mr X he would not be eligible for a permit at his new address as it was in a car free development. However, the officer amended Mr X’s address and put the permit application through in error. It later told Mr X he was not eligible for a permit due to it being in a car free development and cancelled the permit. It explained the landlord or letting agent should have explained to Mr X that he was moving into a car free development prior to him renting the property.
8. The Council apologised to Mr X for previously giving him misleading information and upheld his complaint. To remedy this, and the inconvenience caused, it gave Mr X 30, free, one hour visitor parking permits.
9. Mr X also complained he was issued with PCNs for parking in the development. The Council cancelled the PCNs and disregarded Mr X’s car for PCN enforcement for 6 weeks to allow him to find alternative parking.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the Council has taken suitable action to remedy the injustice caused by its acknowledged fault. We do not award punitive damages in the way a court might. If Mr X considers he has a claim to make for damages he may wish to make a claim in the small claims court. We cannot decide such a claim. Our aim, if we find fault, is to try to place the person in the position they would have been but for the fault. Mr X does not qualify for a parking permit because he lives in a car free development. As noted by the Council, this information should have been available to Mr X via his landlord or letting agent during the process of him deciding to rent the property. The property owner would be aware it is a car free development which means residents cannot have resident parking permits. If Mr X considers this was not made clear to him during the process of him renting the property, and this impacted his decision to rent it, he may wish to raise it with his landlord or letting agent as applicable.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because an investigation by this office would not add to the responses and remedies the Council has already provided via its own previous investigation of the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman