Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant cannot have a parking permit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council excluded him from a parking permit due to a blanket policy that applies to his address. He says the Council has breached the public sector equality duty and failed to make reasonable adjustments.

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. This includes the complaint correspondence and a letter about a parking fine. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X bought a property this year. The Council declined his request for a parking permit because he lives in a car free development.
5. In response to his complaint, the Council explained that it decided in 2001 that all developments of at least 10 units would be car free and residents would be excluded from permit schemes. It said this condition forms part of the planning consent and it is the responsibility of the landlord or developer to notify perspective occupiers. The Council said the local land charges record includes information about car-free developments. The Council also said that individual circumstances (for example a job) cannot over-ride the planning condition. It said there are exceptions for blue badge holders.
6. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s approach. He needs a permit for work-related reasons, reports he is a life-long resident of the borough, and says he has some health issues. Mr X says the Council should not apply a blanket policy and it has breached the public sector equality duty by not making reasonable adjustments for his exceptional circumstances.
7. I have seen a letter which states Mr X bought the property this year. I have not seen anything to suggest Mr X has a blue badge.
8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council refused a permit in line with the 2001 policy decision and the planning decision for Mr X’s development. As the decision reflects the policy there is no reason to start an investigation. We are not an appeal body and we could not ask the Council to issue a permit when that would be contrary to the policy and planning consent. Mr X could speak to his local councillors if he thinks the Council should adopt a different approach to controlling development and parking. We cannot tell the Council to change its policy.
9. Mr X says the Council breached the public sector equality duty and failed to make reasonable adjustments. The nature of someone’s job, and period of residency, are not protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Disability is covered and the Council had due regard to its duties by making exceptions for blue badge holders. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. We can consider if the Council has taken its duties into account; it did this by making exceptions for blue badge holders. If Mr X thinks the Council has discriminated against him, he would need to start legal action for a breach of the Equality Act.
10. Mr X also complains the Council sent the wrong link when he wanted to escalate his complaint. The Council apologised for the error and this is not a matter that requires an investigation.

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