Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a request for a replacement parking permit. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s process for replacing a lost parking permit was confusing and the Council took over two weeks to issue a replacement. Mr X says the Council also failed to refund the cost of the replacement, despite promising to. Mr X is unhappy about the way the Council handled his complaint.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the Council. This means 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. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
6. Having to wait over two weeks for a replacement parking permit caused Mr X some inconvenience and frustration. However, this is not significant enough injustice to justify us investigating. The replacement permit cost £10. Even if the Council did not refund this as promised, that is not significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to pursuing the complaint either.
7. Mr X also complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint procedures if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman