Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s operation of its residents parking permit service and parking penalties resulting from it. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s parking permit scheme which he says did not make it clear how many visitors permits were allowed in a year. He says the scheme does not support self-employed business users like him and he incurred a parking penalty as a result.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council’s parking permit system is unclear about how many visitors permits he is entitled to in a year, he says this resulted in him finding it difficult to park when he is using his vehicle for business and he incurred a parking penalty.
6. The Council says its information online and for residents annual permit applications makes it clear how many permits are issued within a year. It says Mr X has purchased over 80 out of 100 available paperless visitor permits within the 12-month period.
7. Mr X has lived in the area for over 10 years so he must be aware of how the system operates and has purchased permits in the previous years. He disagrees with the permit system which does not cater for his self-employed business needs and this is why he incurred a penalty. We can only consider the parking scheme which is operating under a traffic regulation order for that area.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made. In this case the Council has information available for residents using the scheme on its website and there is no evidence that Mr X has complained about using the system in the past.
9. Mr X paid the penalty he incurred but the Council later cancelled it and refunded him following his representations. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. In this case the cost of the penalty has been removed.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s operation of its residents parking permit service and parking penalties resulting from it. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman