Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council requiring checks before issuing Mr X with visitors parking permits, which resulted in the visitors getting a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained:

• The Council sought an eligibility check before it would give him visitors parking permits which led to Mr X’s visitors getting Penalty Charge Notice’s (PCN).
• There were inconsistencies in the Council’s decision making on the PCN challenges, as one PCN challenge was accepted and the other was not.

2. Mr X says this caused him financial loss, frustration and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B).
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X lives in a residents parking permit holder area.
8. Mr X complained the Council did not issue him with visitor parking permits when he applied and paid for them.
9. The Council told him it needed to do an eligibility check before it could issue him with the permits. The Council asked Mr X to provide some documents for this. The Council told Mr X the visitor permits would not be approved until he supplied the necessary documents.
10. Mr X said he has been a resident in the Council’s area for four years and has never had to do this before when applying for visitor permits.
11. The Council issued the visitor permits two days after Mr X sent the documents to the Council. Before this happened, Mr X’s visitor had parked on the street and received a PCN two days in a row.
12. The Council had already told Mr X the visitor permits would not be issued without the eligibility check. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault in issuing the PCNs to justify investigation into the matter.
13. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
14. Mr X challenged the PCNs. The Council cancelled one PCN but not the other. The Council says it waived the second PCN as a goodwill gesture as it was issued within 24 hours of the first one.
15. As the Council properly considered Mr X’s complaint about the PCNs and can explain its rationale for making its decision, it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault in this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman