The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not renew three parking permits. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.
The complaint
The complainants, whom I refer to as Mr & Mrs X, complain the Council will not renew three parking permits. They have had three permits for 20 years and say it is wrong for the Council to now limit them to two permits.
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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainants and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and the regulations for the parking scheme. I also considered Assessment Code and comments the complainants made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
Mr & Mrs X bought their house in 1979. There has been a parking scheme in their road since at least 2003; Mr & Mrs X say the scheme started in 1995. The rules say households in their road can have one residents’ parking permit and one visitor’s permit; residents can use the visitor permit for their own cars. For about 20 years Mr & Mrs X have had three permits. They used two of the permits for their own vehicles and used the third for visitors.
A member of Council staff erroneously issued too many permits to some residents. The Council corrected the error, on renewal, when it realised some people had been given too many permits.
Mr & Mrs X renewed their permits in 2022 and were restricted to two permits. They say they need three permits and should not be penalised when they have had three permits for so long. They have mobility issues and say that having two permits will devalue their house. They cannot build off-road parking and say a four bedroom house should not be restricted to two parking spaces.
In response to their complaint the Council explained that the limit is two permits per household and, when it becomes aware of historical irregularities, it must act to make sure the scheme is administered correctly and fairly. It said it cannot treat Mr & Mrs X differently, regardless of the error.
I will not investigate the Council’s decision to issue two permits because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The rules say that households in the complainants’ road can have a maximum of two permits. The Council’s decision reflects the rules so there is no reason to start an investigation. The Council made an error and issued Mr & Mrs X with three permits. But, it is not fault for the Council to now process the application correctly and in accordance with the rules. It would be wrong for the Council to knowingly allow Mr & Mrs X to have three permits when other residents are restricted to two.
I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. The Council made an error but the error meant that, through no fault of their own, Mr & Mrs X had three permits when they were only entitled to two. The complainants benefited from the error and they are now being put back in the position they would have been in, had the error not occurred. The error did not influence Mr & Mrs X’s decision to buy the house because they moved in before the scheme started. If the Council had not made the error then from the start of the scheme the complainants would have had two permits. The Council has now corrected that error and this corrective action does not amount to a policy change as the complainants have suggested.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman