Summary: Mr X complained the Council withdrew his resident parking permit, telling him his property did not qualify for resident parking. Mr X says he has not received a refund for the permit and has nowhere to park near his home. The Council is at fault for providing misleading information, this has caused Mr X uncertainty. I have recommended the Council pays Mr X £300 for the distress caused and apologises for not explaining the reasons behind its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council withdrew his resident parking permit three months after he had bought it, telling him his property did not qualify for resident parking. Mr X complains the Council confirmed in writing to the previous owner of his property that it did qualify for resident parking and that he relied on this information when he decided to buy the property. Mr X says he has not received a refund for the permit and now has nowhere to park near to his home.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s policies and procedures

6. The Council’s website gives public access to all planning application documents and agreements.
7. On the website, there are documents about the planning permission for Mr X’s property. There is an agreement about parking at the development. It says specific properties within the development are eligible for parking permits. Mr X’s property is not eligible to apply for a parking permit.
8. The Council said the agreement has been in place since it granted planning permission. There have been no changes.

What happened

9. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
10. Mr X bought a flat in October 2024.
11. The previous owner of the flat had a resident parking permit. They emailed the Council in May 2024 to explain they were selling the flat. They asked for confirmation in writing the property was eligible for resident and visitor parking permit, to give to the new owner. The Council replied and said: ‘I can confirm [the property] is eligible to apply for a residents’ permit and a visitors permit.’
12. Mr X said he bought the flat on the understanding it had parking.
13. In the middle of October 2024, Mr X bought a resident parking permit and used it without issue.
14. In early December, the Council emailed Mr X and said his property was not eligible for resident parking and cancelled his permit from the following month. The Council refunded Mr X for the portion of the permit he had not used.
15. Mr X complained to the Council in late December. He said the Council told him in writing his property had resident parking, which the Council had now withdrawn. He said the Council gave misleading information; he would not have bought the property had he known it did not have parking.
16. The Council issued a stage one response in January 2025. It said the property was only eligible for visitor parking and not resident parking. It said it should not have approved the resident parking permit. It upheld Mr X’s complaint and apologised. The Council said it has provided training to staff on this matter.
17. Mr X asked the Council for a review. In its response, the Council explained it issued the resident parking permit to Mr X in error and said Mr X’s property was only eligible for visitor parking. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint, apologised for the inconvenience but could not provide the resolution Mr X sought.
18. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. He said the Council told the previous owner the property was eligible for residents and visitor parking. The Council issued Mr X a permit, withdrew it after three months and has not issued a refund for the rest of the term. Mr X said the owner of the property before him, and his neighbours, have resident permits. He would like the Council to explain why he cannot have one. He would also like the Council to honour his permit.

My enquiries

19. In response to my enquiries, the Council said Mr X’s property cannot legally have a parking permit. This is part of an agreement made within the planning permission for the development. The Council explained some properties within the development can have a parking permit; Mr X’s property cannot.
20. The Council said information it provided to the previous owner of Mr X’s property was in error. The previous owner was not entitled to a resident parking permit.
21. The Council said it issued Mr X’s parking permit in error and has refunded Mr X for the parking permit that it revoked.

Analysis

Misleading information

22. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint. It said it provided wrong information to the previous owner of the property and explained Mr X’s property was not eligible for a resident parking permit and never had been. The Council is at fault for providing misleading information, which it has already accepted and apologised for. This has caused Mr X confusion as it was unclear if he was entitled to a resident parking permit. This is distress, this is his injustice.
23. Mr X said he would not have bought the property had he known it did not have parking. He now parks a ten-minute walk away from his property. While I understand Mr X’s frustration, I cannot link Mr X buying a property without parking to the fault of the Council. The buyer of a property and their solicitor must check the details of a property before purchase. I do not find the Council’s fault caused this injustice.

The resident parking permit

24. The Council issued Mr X the original residents parking permit in error. The Council is at fault for issuing the original permit to Mr X, which it has already accepted and apologised for in its complaint response. This has not caused Mr X injustice as he received the temporary benefit of a permit he was not entitled to.
25. The Council has refunded Mr X for the portion of the residents parking permit that it revoked. The Council has not caused Mr X a financial injustice by revoking his residents parking permit.
26. The Council explained it cannot legally offer Mr X a resident parking permit. This is because of the planning agreement that is in place at the development. There are only some properties which can have a permit, Mr X’s property is not one of these. The Council is not at fault for not issuing a new permit to Mr X, as this is not something it can legally do.

The complaint response

27. In complaining to the Ombudsman, Mr X wanted a clear explanation as to why some of his neighbours are entitled to a resident parking permit and he is not. The Council did not explain this in its complaint response. The Council has explained this in response to my enquiries, as set out above. The Council could have explained this better in its complaint response to Mr X to enable him to understand the situation. The Council’s complaint response was poor. This has caused Mr X distress as he thought the Council treated him differently to his neighbours and he did not understand why. This is his injustice. The Council has addressed this in response to this investigation. This has clarified matters and resolved Mr X’s injustice.

Back to top

Action

28. Within four weeks of the Ombudsman’s decision, the Council should apologise and pay Mr X £300 for the distress caused by providing misleading information and failing to explain why his property cannot have a resident parking permit.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman