Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision she is not eligible for visitor parking permits. This is because the initial fault by the Council did not cause Miss X any significant personal injustice and there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision she does not qualify for visitor parking permits.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision she is not entitled to visitor parking permits. When she first moved to the property she was told she could have visitor parking permits. The Council then told her she had been given access to visitor parking permits in error and she is not eligible for them. Miss X says the Council’s website states that people living in car free developments can purchase visitor parking permits.

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 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (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. Miss X complained to the Council about the matters set out in paragraph one, above.
7. The Council partially upheld Miss X’s complaint. It explained that, due to an error with the parking zone allocated to Miss X’s address, it had previously wrongly allowed her to access visitor parking permits which she was not entitled to.
8. It explained that its resident and visitor parking permits are for residents who live within one of its Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ). As Miss X lives on a new development on a privately managed estate it does not lie within any of the CPZ the Council manages and operates. Residents of private roads are not entitled to either type of permit to park on nearby public roads.
9. Information on the Council’s website about residents of car free developments being able to apply for visitor permits refers to and applies to residents who live within a CPZ.
10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because whilst the Council was at fault in initially allowing her to access visitor parking permits this did not cause her any significant injustice. Instead, it meant she benefitted from a facility she did not qualify for. As such, this does not warrant a further investigation by this office.
11. There is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision Miss X does not qualify for visitor parking permits. This is because it has made its decision in line with the relevant eligibility criteria. Only those living within a CPZ qualify and Miss X does not live within a CPZ as she lives on a private road.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because the Council’s previous error did not cause any significant personal injustice to Miss X and there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision she does not qualify for visitor parking permits.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman