Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the cancellation of his parking permit. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making. Also, further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly relied on a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to cancel his parking permit.
2. Mr X said this caused him worry, stress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We consider 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
  (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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

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. Mr X said the Council wrongly relied on a TRO and did not consider his personal circumstances.
8. The Council said it cancelled the permit because Mr X is not the registered keeper of the vehicle he drives. The Council said its policy only allows permits where the resident is the registered keeper of a vehicle.
9. The Council said Mr X could change the registered keeper of the vehicle to avoid the cancellation.
10. The available evidence suggests the Council acted in line with its policy. Therefore, we would be unlikely to find fault in how it reached its decision.
11. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
12. Given the Council acted in line with its policy, further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. We could not tell the Council it should reinstate the permit.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making. Also, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman