The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has issued parking permits to people living in a car free development. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice. In addition, the decisions were made too long ago to allow for an effective investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council issued parking permits to people who live in a car free development. He says this causes parking problems. Mr X wants the Council to cancel the permits. He also complains the Council did not respond to his queries and he found it hard to access the planning documents.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We can decide whether to start an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and some of the planning documents. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
Mr X moved to his street last year. He complained to the Council that residents of a car free development in the road had been given parking permits. He said the permits were causing parking congestion. The Council did not reply to his first email and he had to chase for a response to his second email. Mr X said he had not been able to find information about the planning application for the development. Planning consent for the development was given in 2000.
The Council apologised for its delayed response. It explained that planning documents for applications before 2006 are held digitally but Mr X could make a Freedom of Information request. It sent him the planning decision and the section 106 agreement. The Council explained that, while being car-free may have been explored as part of the application process, it did not form part of the planning decision and was not included in the section 106 agreement. The Council said it had correctly issued permits because the development was not approved as car free.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I have read documents from June 2000 and November 2000 and both give planning consent without reference to the development being car free. The Council cannot provide other documents due to the time that has passed. The June document refers to the developer making a financial contribution to the maintenance of the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ); permits are issued to people living in a CPZ. I have read the 106 agreement which does not say the development is car free. As such there is no reason for the Council to withhold permits.
Mr X says documents have been changed and the website altered after he complained. He also says we upheld a complaint from another person many years ago. Neither we nor the Council have records of the complaint from the other person so I cannot assess its bearing on this complaint. Mr X says there were discussions about the development being car-free but it is the planning decision that counts and not discussions during the application process. Mr X says the information on the website is inaccurate; however, documents I obtained from the website and a document I obtained from the Council both confirm the development was approved without car-free status. Due to the time that has passed since the decision was made, and the lack of documents now held by the Council, it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome. The body of evidence still available does not show the development was approved as car free.
The Council delayed responding to Mr X. I appreciate Mr X may have found this frustrating and he found it hard to obtain some documents. But, this has not caused an injustice requiring an investigation. The Council apologised for the delayed response, answered his query and provided the key documents.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice. In addition, the time that has passed means it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome due to the lack of available documents.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman