London Borough of Merton (18 014 095)

Category : Transport and highways > Traffic management

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 06 Jun 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with his reports about parking permit misuse. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

  1. Mr X has complained that the Council has failed to deal with his concerns about a local business misusing parking permits. He has also complained that the same business has built a structure without planning permission.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have considered Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with his concerns about parking permits. The final part of this statement will explain my reasons for not considering the rest of his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  2. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered all the information from Mr X and the Council including the Council’s response to my enquires.
  2. A copy of this decision was sent in draft to Mr X and the Council. I have considered the comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr X lives near a controlled parking zone. Residents must have a permit to park on the road and can apply for an Annual Visitor Permit (AVP) to use when friends, relatives or tradesman visit. Mr X has complained to the Council as he says staff at a local business regularly use an AVP to park their cars. He says this is not how the permits should be used and often means he cannot park near his home. Mr X argues that the Council has not properly looked into his concerns.
  2. The Council disagrees. It says when it receives reports about permit misuse it will arrange for a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) to visit the area. The CEO will inspect the vehicles and permits reported. Where there is sufficient evidence of misuse it will write to the permit holder and seek clarification. This may lead to the Council withdrawing the AVP.
  3. In this case, the Council says it has carried out many visits to the area but seen no evidence to show the permits are being misused. It says it has seen two of the vehicles Mr X has complained about using an AVP. However, the vehicles have not been seen on subsequent visits. Therefore, it has not taken any further action. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision. He says he has provided evidence to support his claims and argues the Council has allowed the permit misuse to continue.
  4. I am satisfied the Council has properly investigated Mr X’s reports about possible permit misuse before deciding not to take any further action. I cannot say it is unreasonable that the Council needs to have evidence to show the AVPs are not being used correctly. I can see from the information it has provided, that CEOs have visited the area on several occasions in response to Mr X’s complaints. But they have not seen enough evidence to show the permits are being misused. Therefore, the Council has decided not to take any further action. I understand Mr X may disagree, but as the Council properly considered the matter before reaching this decision, I cannot say there is any fault.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There is no fault with how the Council has dealt with complaints about parking permit misuse.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

Mr X has also complained that the owners of a local business have built a structure without planning permission. The law says that before investigating a complaint we must be satisfied that the complainant has made a formal complaint to the Council and it has been given the opportunity to respond. From the information I have seen, the Council has not yet had the opportunity to address this part of the complaint. Therefore, I have not investigated this matter as this part of the complaint is premature.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings