Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s parking permit. Part of the complaint is late. For the more recent events, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating. And, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council cancelled his resident parking permit because his vehicle was over 5.25 metres in length. He says he uses the vehicle for work and the Council’s decision is affecting his business.
2. Mr X complains the Council is applying their policy unfairly and in a discriminatory way. He says, for the last decade, the Council allowed a neighbouring garage to park a vehicle that exceeded Council permit restrictions on length of vehicles. Mr X says the Council has allocated the neighbour extra street parking space to support their business. He thinks the Council’s difference in treatment is discriminatory based on race.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

6. 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

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. Mr X complains, for the past decade, the Council failed to address parking permit misuse by a neighbouring business. This complaint is late because Mr X first complained to the Ombudsman about these issues in June 2026. I have seen no good reasons to look at these historic issues now. Mr X could have complained to us much sooner.
10. The Council withdrew Mr X’s resident parking permit because his vehicle exceeded 5.25 metres in length. This decision is in line with its online information about eligibility for resident parking permits. The Council considered Mr X’s request to exercise discretion and grant his permit. But, it refused his request. It explained its resident parking permit policy did not allow for any exceptions to be made. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.
11. Also, in the event the Council incorrectly granted someone else a parking permit for an oversized vehicle, this would not provide a basis for us to recommend the Council repeats the same error for Mr X. We could not order a council repeat a previous fault which goes against their policy. Rather, council officers should apply the current policy when making their decisions. As the Council’s decision appears to be in line with its policy on resident parking permits, we have no basis to recommend the Council reconsiders its decision in any way. So, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome or the outcome Mr X wants.
12. So, we will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to withdraw Mr X’s resident parking permit.
13. In response to Mr X’s complaint about the neighbouring business’ vehicle, the Council confirmed it had not awarded the neighbouring business any additional dedicated parking space. It considered the information and evidence provided by Mr X. Based on this, the Council told Mr X the neighbouring business may be misusing a Motor Trade Permit. It confirmed it would investigate the issue with the business. And, the Council said it would take further action, including on-street enforcement, if the permit holder failed to address any misuse identified by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating this complaint, including so far as it concerns Mr X’s complaint about a difference in treatment based on race. The Council considered Mr X’s evidence promptly. It clearly explained to Mr X the next steps it would take to escalate his reports of potential permit misuse.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. Part of the complaint is late. For the more recent events, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating. And, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman