The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to Ms X’s parking permit. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains the Council did not enforce its policy of car-free properties properly and that it did not exercise its discretion to allow her to extend her resident parking permit when she had been unaware she had moved to a car-free property.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X, including the Council’s response to her complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
On seeking to renew her resident parking permit, the Council told Ms X the property she had moved to was in a car-free development and so she was not entitled to a parking permit.
Ms X complained to the Council about this, asking it to exercise discretion and resolve the situation for her as she had not been made aware of the property’s status by her landlord.
The Council explained to Ms X that she did not meet the eligibility criteria for a permit because she lived in a car-free development. It told her that her landlord had had a responsibility to inform her of the property’s status and that it would not give her the 12-month permit extension she had requested.
The Council followed its policy and procedures in declining Ms X’s application to renew her permit. It is unfortunate her landlord had not advised her of the situation before she rented the property, but the Council is not obliged to resolve her problem by extending her permit until she moves from the property. This is a disappointing decision for Ms X but it is not evidence of fault by the Council and it is not our role to review the merits of council policies or decisions.
The Council did acknowledge some fault in its handling of Ms X’s complaint but we will not investigate complaint handling when we are not investigation the substantive issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman