Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue Mr X with a residential parking permit. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in how it made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has provided him with no option to lawfully park near his home. He says he lives on a red route, and the Council has refused to exercise its discretion to make him eligible for a parking permit on nearby streets. Mr X says this has caused him stress and financial pressures, constantly worrying about being fined when needing to park near his home. He wants the Council to provide him with a viable option to park near his home.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s home address does not fall within any of the Council’s Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) boundaries. His home is also on a Transport for London (TfL) red route. Therefore, he has no option to apply for a parking permit on his street.
7. Mr X complained the Council failed to exercise its discretion to enable him to apply for a residential parking permit so he could park on a nearby side street. He said this left him with no lawful option to park near his home.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. The Council explained to Mr X that it was unable to add addresses to a CPZ at a resident’s request. Therefore, Mr X was ineligible for a parking permit for nearby streets. It said it will be reviewing permit eligibility for the road where Mr X’s lives. Residents, including Mr X will be contacted once the review is live to take part in the consultation.
10. There is no legal duty for councils to provide parking for residents. I am satisfied the Council considered Mr X’s concerns. It has followed its policy and eligibility criteria for issuing parking permits. Therefore, I am unlikely to find fault in how it made its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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