Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking permits because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has refused to place his vehicle in a lower banding for a parking permit, despite him offering evidence that his vehicle is not high polluting.
2. Mr Y says the change in the Council’s policy on the cost of parking permits means the cost has increased for him by approximately £300.

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. 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 or continue 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

5. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y says he has paid for an annual parking permit for several years. However, when the Council changed the policy on parking permits, it changed the bandings for vehicles. Under the new policy, Mr Y’s vehicle is under the highest banding. This is because his vehicle was registered after 1 March 2021 without the CO2 emissions being recorded at the DVLA. This meant that his parking permit charge increased by about £300 to £480 per year.
7. Mr Y complained to the Council about the change and provided it with a copy of his vehicle’s Certificate of Compliance from his vehicle’s manufacturer, which confirmed the vehicle met environmental regulations for it to be classed as a low-polluting vehicle.
8. The Council explained that under its policy it used information provided by the DVLA to determine emission compliance and therefore classify which band a vehicle would be placed in for parking permits. It said that unless the DVLA accepted the Certificate of Conformity and updated Mr Y’s vehicle details on its system, it would not alter the banding for Mr Y‘s parking permit payment. Mr Y then approached us.
9. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. In this case the Council has followed its policy when it decided the charge banding for Mr Y’s vehicle. It considered relevant evidence from the DVLA as its policy requires.
10. While Mr Y may disagree with the DVLA’s classification of his vehicle and therefore the banding the Council has placed him in, it is for him to approach the DVLA if he wishes to use the information he has to get the DVLA’s information changed. However, the Council has made its decision based on the criteria set out in its policy. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify investigation. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman