The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not allowing the complainant to apply for a parking permit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in how it reached its decision.
The complaint
The complainant, Miss A, complained about the Council not allowing her to apply for a parking permit.
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 or may decide not to continue with 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, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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 an organisation’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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss A told us a third party told her to apply for a parking permit when she moved into her property. But she said the Council has rejected her application. She said because of this she is paying £13 a day for a car park and this is causing her family financial problems. Miss A wants the Council to allow her to buy a parking permit.
The Council considered Miss A’s complaint. It considered its guidance and policy. It advised Miss A it is not responsible for the misinformation provided by a third party. The Council’s guidance says it is strongly recommended, prior to buying or starting a tenancy of an address in a residential zone without enough off-road parking for their needs, people ensure they check to ensure the prospective home is eligible to buy residential parking permits. The Council can only issue permits to an eligible address as defined in its Traffic Order. A checklist of eligible addresses can be found on the Council’s website. It was Miss A’s responsibility to check eligibility prior to moving.
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. In this case there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. This is because it has considered its guidance and policies when making its decision. We cannot criticise it for doing so and we cannot criticise the Council for any misinformation a third party provided to Miss A.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss A’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in how it reached its decision.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman