The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to renew the complainant’s parking permit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains the Council will not give her a parking permit even though she is eligible for one. She wants the Council to issue a 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 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 Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence, information about the parking scheme and the planning decision. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
The Council granted planning permission for a new development to provide student accommodation. During the planning application the Council told the developer that residents would not be able to buy parking permits. The planning decision, that granted planning permission for the development, states residents of the development will not be able to buy parking permits.
Ms X moved into the accommodation in June 2021. She applied for and received a parking permit. In May 2022 Ms X was issued with a parking fine and found out her permit had been cancelled and would not be renewed.
The Council cancelled the parking fine but said it should not have issued a permit in 2021 because residents from Ms X’s development are excluded from the scheme.
Ms X complained and said her road is listed on the website as a street where permits are permitted. Ms X renewed her tenancy and is due to return to the accommodation in September. She says she cannot afford to rent one of the on-site parking places and feels vulnerable walking home if she cannot park nearby. Ms X wants the Council to issue a permit for her return in September.
The Council should not have issued a permit in 2021 because residents of the development are excluded from the permit scheme. But, this did not cause an injustice requiring an investigation because, through no fault of her own, Ms X had use of a permit she was not entitled to. Ms X says she took out the tenancy in 2021 because the website says the road is eligible but she chose to renew the tenancy in 2022 knowing the development is excluded.
I will not investigate the Council’s decision to cancel and not re-issue a permit because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Ms X’s road is listed as one where residents can join the permit scheme but her development (the full address) is not listed. And, the building which previously stood at this address was demolished and replaced by a development for which the planning consent states residents will be excluded from the permit scheme. I cannot ask the Council to issue Ms X with a permit because it would require the Council to knowingly breach the planning consent. Further, the fact that Ms X’s road is listed as an eligible street does not over-ride the planning consent, especially as her development is not named as one where permits are available.
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