Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his parking permit applications. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused his application to renew his resident parking permit after his landlord wrongly told the Council he no longer lived at the address. He says the Council ignored the evidence he provided and focussed on irrelevant issues. He has been issued Penalty Charge Notices as he has been parking on the road without a valid permit. Mr X also complains the Council failed to follow its complaints policy.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about its decision to refuse his application for a renewal of his resident parking permit at his address which he says is a studio flat.
7. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It explained it had refused the application because there were already two active permits for the address. The address is registered as a single dwelling which qualifies for two resident parking permits only. It informed Mr X there had been no planning application to convert the property to flats. It advised Mr X to speak to his landlord and ask him to provide the Council with details of the property’s change of use. It explained that if the change of use was agreed, each property would be entitled to permits.
8. Mr X said the Council’s decision to refuse the application did not take account of the fact he had been a lawful long-term tenant at the address and he had been previously granted permits. He said he was not responsible for the change of use issue and he should not be refused a permit whilst another tenant receives one. He asked the Council to update its records on the current use of the property and to issue him a parking permit.
9. The Council maintained its decision had been made in line with the permit eligibility for the property. As there were already two current permits issued at the address a third would not be issued. It explained it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the relevant permissions were in place for a change of use to the property which would impact permit eligibility.
10. After submitting his complaint to this office, Mr X told us he had successfully applied for a parking permit at the property. He says this is evidence of fault by the Council which previously prevented him from renewing his permit.
11. We asked the Council why Mr X’s application had now been successful. It explained that when Mr X made the more recent application one of the existing permits at the property had expired. Mr X applied for the permit before this tenant applied to renew their permit. This meant there was only one active permit in place and so Mr X’s application succeeded as he was issued the second permit for the property.
12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. The property where Mr X lives is registered as a single dwelling. This is relevant to the Council’s decision. It means the property is eligible for a maximum of two permits.
13. The Council has assessed and decided Mr X’s applications according to the eligibility criteria for the property. When there were already two active permits allocated to the property Mr X’s application was declined. When Mr X applied again when there was only one active permit in place his application succeeded as he was allocated the second permit for the property.
14. We will not consider the complaint handling issues Mr X raised. This is because it is not a good use of limited public funds for us to consider complaint handling issues in isolation where we are not also considering the substantive complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman