Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s operation of a parking permit scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. There is insufficient evidence of fault and it was reasonable for Ms X and any other residents to appeal to the London Tribunals against any parking penalties received.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council introducing new permit arrangements for second vehicles and visitors which she says resulted in residents, including her, receiving parking penalties. She says the Council provided visitor permits which she does not require and she preferred to have the permit charges refunded to her.

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))

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X says residents on her road have been issued with penalties following the introduction of a new parking permit scheme in which signs were erected after new restrictions were in place. She received two penalties on the same day and then a subsequent on the following month. She says the Council is at fault and she should be compensated. The Council told her that the onus was on residents to apply for a permit under the new system as no automatic renewal was possible and they were informed about this previously.
8. The Council cancelled the first penalties following her representations. The last penalty was not issued in error because Ms X was not displaying a valid permit which it says she had been sent the previous month. Ms X subsequently paid this penalty without appealing.
9. Ms X applied for a second vehicle permit was cost £100 and she says that she received visitor permits which she would have preferred as a refund payment. The visitor permits are part of the scheme and anyone who joins the permit scheme is required to comply with the terms and conditions. No discounts or refunds are available.
10. 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.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and the permit scheme terms and conditions are available to participants.
12. Ms X had a right to appeal to the Adjudicator at the London Tribunals if she believed the penalties were issued incorrectly and there is no charge for someone to pursue this remedy. We will not investigate where there is a right of appeal to a tribunal or the courts available.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s operation of a parking permit scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. There is insufficient evidence of fault and it was reasonable for Ms X and any other residents to appeal to the London Tribunals against any parking penalties received.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman