Summary: We will use our discretion not to investigate this complaint about a refund for a business parking permit because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the Council charged him for a business permit rather than a residents parking permit. He does not have a business and wants a refund.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X bought a residents parking permit in January 2024. He paid £102 for a 12 month permit.
5. In April 2024 Mr X applied for another permit. It appears he applied for a business permit. He paid £365 for a 12 month permit. Mr X used the permit throughout the year.
6. In 2025 Mr X realised the Council had given him the wrong permit because he does not have a business. He asked for a refund and said he did not, in 2024, provide any evidence to support an application for a business permit.
7. In response, the Council said it now has a different contractor for permit applications and there are few records, and no call recordings, from when Mr X bought the business permit in 2024. It said it only issues business permits if the applicant submits proof they operate a business. The Council says the records show Mr X bought a permit but it cannot see what supporting evidence he provided. Based on the limited evidence, and the stringent verification checks, the Council said it was more likely than not that it issued the permit correctly. The Council noted Mr X used the permit throughout the year. The Council said it would not make a refund. Mr X says he does not run a business so could not have provided any evidence.
8. Mr X says the Council issued the permit in error and he wants a refund.
9. We make evidenced based decisions. There is no evidence to show what happened in 2024 so we could not decide whether the Council issued the permit in error or whether Mr X made an error. Given the lack of evidence, and our inability to decide what happened, it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.
10. In assessing this complaint I have noted that, as the business permit was £263 more than the permit Mr X bought in January, it is reasonable to expect he would have been alerted to check whether he was applying for the correct permit.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because, due to the lack of evidence, it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman