Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a parking permit transfer. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council will not transfer his parking permit to his new car. He says the Council has breached the Armed Forces Covenant. Mr X wants an apology, full refund or a 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 impact 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 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

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and a copy of the evidence submitted by Mr X. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. If an applicant passes a credit check when they first apply for a parking permit, the Council does not require them to provide more information. Mr X’s partner applied for a parking permit in her name and the Council awarded a permit on this basis.
5. Mr X bought a new car and tried to transfer the permit. Mr X says the Council refused the request because he is often away from home on military service. Mr X complained and the Council said it would reconsider if he provided evidence of car ownership, proof of his address and information about his military service. The Council suggested Mr X’s partner could apply for the transfer as the account is her name. Mr X provided some documents but the Council decided they were not sufficient to prove car ownership. Specifically, Mr X did not provide the V5 or schedule of insurance.
6. The Council refused Mr X’s request for a refund because he did not provide the supporting evidence within 30 days.
7. The current position is that the Council will not transfer the permit because the documents do not reflect the name of the account holder and Mr X has not provided adequate proof of ownership. However, in response to my enquiries, the Council said it will make a refund from the date Mr X stopped using the permit for his old car.
8. I appreciate this has been frustrating for Mr X and I can understand why he has queried the decision when, in his opinion, the first application was approved based on the same circumstances and evidence. However, it appears the assessment process for the original permit was different and, for the new car, there was a different process which required proof of ownership. The Council decided this evidence requirement was not met and, having seen the evidence Mr X submitted, I see no suggestion of fault in the way the Council reached this decision.
9. As such, there is insufficient evidence of fault to require an investigation or to ask the Council for a permit or full refund. But, as stated above, the Council will provide a partial refund.
10. Mr X complained the Council breached the Armed Forces Covenant. I considered this but the final decision is based on Mr X not meeting the evidence requirements rather than how often he works away from home. There is nothing to suggest the final decision is linked to his service.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman