Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to issue a residents parking permit. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s rejection of his online residents parking permit. He says he is a council taxpayer for his property and this should have been sufficient evidence of residency. He says builders are unable to park to carry out work to his home without incurring parking penalties.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 and the Council’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he applied for a residents parking permit for a property which he owns. The Council rejected the online application because it did not meet its verification requirements. The Council’s policy says that additional information must be provided by the applicant within 30 days of submission or the application will be closed. The Council sent Mr X a reminder after 15 days but he did not provide the evidence so his application was cancelled.
6. The Council’s policy is clear about the process and Mr X could have provided the required information for his application to be verified. This would have resulted in the issue of a permit for his vehicle, but not for tradesmen attending his property. There is a separate system for obtaining traders’ permits at a specific property within a permit zone.
7. Mr X also complained about the Council’s policy of not returning fees for failed applications as unlawful and having no basis in consumer or contract law. We cannot determine whether a policy is lawful and he would need to seek legal advice if he wishes to challenge this.
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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to issue a residents parking permit. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman