Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a discretionary residents parking permit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not properly consider his application for a discretionary residents parking permit. He says it treated a planning informative on his property as a binding restriction; did not properly consider all the evidence he provided and the planning documents it relied upon were not readily available which means he could not have reasonably known about the restriction.

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 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 the complainant. I considered information published on the Council’s website about resident parking permits.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council issues a maximum of two resident parking permits to each household in streets designated as within residents’ parking zones. A household is defined as a house or flat within a permit parking zone that:
• Is registered for Council Tax;
• Has the appropriate planning permissions;
• Does not have a planning condition and/or informative restricting permit entitlement;
• Has a valid Unique Property Reference Number (URPN).
7. Households outside a permit zone are not eligible for a standard resident permit but can apply for a discretionary permit, subject to approval. There are no fixed criteria for the granting of a discretionary permit. Each application is considered on its own merits.
8. Mr X applied to the Council for a discretionary residents permit. He was not eligible for a residents parking permit because his property is subject to a planning informative which states that future occupants will not be eligible for parking permits.
9. The Council refused Mr X’s application and appeal and explained its reasons. It considered the information Mr X provided in support of his application but said it had not identified any exceptional circumstances to cause it to agree it outside of its scheme which states properties with a planning informative are not eligible for a permit. The Traffic Management Sub-Committee also reviewed and upheld the decision to refuse the application.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It considered the information Mr X provided and clearly explained its reasons for not agreeing the application outside of its scheme. It is a matter for the Council to decide the eligibility criteria for its parking scheme. Whether or not the planning informative is legally binding is not relevant to the Council’s decision.
11. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decision to decide if it was right or wrong. Instead, we look at the processes it followed to make its decision. If, as here, we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr X disagrees with it.
12. Mr X also complains information about the planning informative on the property was not clearly available and so he could not have reasonably known about the restriction. Mr X did not state whether he is the owner or a tenant of the property. If he purchased the property, this information formed part of the planning permission and would have been available via making the relevant searches and checks carried out as part of the usual buying process to flag up whether any restrictions such as this applied to the property. If Mr X is a tenant, this information would have been available to his landlord and eligibility to apply for a parking permit could have been checked prior to starting a tenancy.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman