Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about parking charges and the Council’s complaints handling. There is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused to use its discretion to allow him to cancel his parking season ticket with two weeks’ notice. He also says a Council officer was rude and dismissive with him on the phone and refused to take a verbal complaint about the matter. He says the matter has caused distress and financial loss. He wants the Council to reimburse his parking costs for unused parking, record its calls and improve its complaints handling.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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. The Council’s car park permit and season ticket policy sets out that a person must give one month’s notice, in writing, to cancel a season ticket. Mr X complained that the Council had allowed him to cancel with only two weeks’ notice in 2024, but in 2025, it was requiring him to give a month’s notice.
6. In its complaint response to Mr X, the Council in 2024, it had made a discretionary decision to accept two weeks’ notice for his cancellation. However this year, it was satisfied Mr X was aware of the one month notice requirement and so would not depart from its policy. It did not uphold his complaint.
7. We will not investigate this. The Council’s decision appears in line with its policy. An earlier discretionary decision does not require the Council to make the same decision again, at a later date. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.
8. Mr X says when he phoned the Council to raise a complaint about the matter, the call handler was rude and dismissive and refused to accept a formal complaint over the phone. He says the call handler then hung up on him multiple times when he tried to call back.
9. In its complaint response, the Council said it had investigated the matter and taken statements from those involved. It said its officer disputed that they had been rude or hung up on Mr X several times. It said there was no call recording to review and due to the differing accounts of what happened, there was insufficient evidence to conclude there had been any officer misconduct. It did accept that it was incorrect for the officer to tell Mr X that the Council would not accept complaints over the phone, as this was not the case. It apologised to him for this oversight. It said it would remind officers of its complaints procedures to ensure this did not happen again.
10. We will not investigate this. As there is no call recording, it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome. We could not require the Council to record all calls it receives, as this is decision for the Council to make as part of its data retention policies and procedures. The Council has apologised to Mr X for incorrectly telling him it could not take a verbal complaint. This is an appropriate remedy for any distress caused by this. It has also acted to improve its service going forward. An investigation by us would be unlikely achieve anything more or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman