Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about parking permits. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating. Mr X has also not suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council applied a blanket ban on parking permits for all Low Car Housing Scheme (LCHS) residents including his premium parking permit. He says there was no clear evidence to support the Council’s decision. He says it failed to consider its duties under the Equality Act and changed the policy without consultation because of a single complainant. Mr X says he had to send Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to get basic information. He says the situation has caused him significant practical and financial disruption having to seek alternative parking arrangements. He wants the Council to review its decision and give LCHS residents access to parking permits.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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)
5. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.
6. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council completed an investigation following a planning complaint about LCHS residents’ eligibility for parking permits following a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. It determined LCHS residents were not eligible for a premium parking permit. It told all LCHS residents and updated its policy on premium parking permits.
10. Mr X complained the Council had not interpreted the s106 agreement correctly. 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. 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.
11. The Council explained to Mr X the agreement stated LCHS residents were not eligible for any form of parking permit. It said LCHS residents could continue to use their permits until they expired. After which point any LCHS resident applying for a premium permit would not be eligible to renew or apply for a new permit. There was no requirement for consultation with the residents as the Council reserves the right to amend charges and procedures to any permit it issues. Therefore, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault for the Council not consulting residents.
12. Mr X complained the Council’s approach failed to consider its Equality Act duties. It is not our role to decide if a council has discriminated against someone or if the Equality Act has been breached. These are legal matters only the courts can decide. However, I am satisfied the Council considered Mr X’s concerns and told him the change does not prevent residents from seeking consideration of their individual circumstances and need for a parking permit.
13. 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.
14. Mr X complained he had to send FOI requests for information he considers should have been readily available. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling, if we cannot deal with the substantive issue. If there are concerns with how the Council dealt with his information requests, Mr X can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office. This is the appropriate body to consider complaints about these matters.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman