The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to accept appropriate alternative documentation confirming the lease arrangements for his vehicle and declined his application for a residents parking permit. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s application to transfer his parking permit.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X complained the Council refused to accept appropriate alternative documentation confirming the lease arrangements for his vehicle and that he is the sole authorised user of the vehicle and declined his application for a residents parking permit.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
As part of the investigation, I have: considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr; made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided; discussed the issues with Mr X; Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Mr X’s employers provide him with a vehicle for his work. His employers lease this vehicle, and a fleet of other vehicles from Company Z.
Mr X lives in a controlled parking zone and has a permit to park his vehicle near his home. To obtain a parking permit Mr X says he had to provide the Council with a company letter confirming he was the sole user of the vehicle. However the Council recently changed its terms and conditions and now requires him to submit documentation in relation to the vehicle that either does not exist or that he does not have access to.
The Council’s current terms and conditions require the following documents for company vehicles: Company letter or email to confirm the applicant is an employee or director, their full name, address, and job title; and one of the following The company’s vehicle logbook, lease agreement, third party letter confirming the lease agreement, company insurance document, or the DVLA Vehicle details showing the vehicle registration and fleet reference number.
When Mr X applied to change the vehicle on his parking permit the Council refused his application as he did not provide the required documentation. Mr X says he provided the documentation he had available to him but could not provide a copy of the lease between his employers and Company Z.
Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. He explained his employers did not have a specific lease for his vehicle as it was part of a master lease covering a large fleet of vehicles. Mr X said he could provide a letter confirming the lease between his employers and Company Z and that he was the sole authorised user of the vehicle, which he asked the Council to accept.
The Council’s response explained it expected an applicant who owned a vehicle to prove this with the vehicle’s logbook. If they were hiring or leasing a vehicle they would be required to provide a copy of the hire/ lease agreement. The Council said the same applied to a company vehicle. Without either of these documents the Council said there would be no way to link the company to the vehicle. This meant a letter from Mr X’s company confirming he was allowed to use the vehicle had no substance as it did not show what authority his employer had to allow Mr X to use the vehicle.
The Council acknowledged Mr X had a letter from Company Z confirming the lease, but it asked for the lease agreement as this was an official legal document. The Council asked Mr X to explain why his employers could not provide a copy of the lease agreement for he vehicles they leased.
Mr X was not satisfied by the Council’s response and asked for his complaint to be considered further. He asserted correspondence from his employers and Company Z, along with the logbook evidenced his link to the vehicle and it was not necessary to rely on the actual lease.
In its response the Council again said it would not accept a confirmation letter from Company Z as valid proof of company vehicle ownership. The Council said it was considering accepting this type of letter from a leasing company in the upcoming review of the terms and conditions. However the documents Mr X had provided did not adhere to the current requirements.
The Council acknowledged the lease document was part of a broader leasing agreement and asked Mr X to provide the relevant pages of the agreement showing the lessor and lessee names along with the lease period.
Mr X provided the Council with a letter from his employers confirming they were unable to provide a copy of the lease agreement. He also asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. Mr X said the Council was unnecessarily restrictive in the forms of evidence it would accept. And its refusal to accept the evidence he had provided, which was accepted by other councils around the country, meant he was unable to park near his home. This has a significant impact on Mr X and his family who needed the vehicle nearby.
Since complaining to us the Council has considered the letter from Mr X’s employers and the difficulties he has in obtaining the lease agreement and has exercised discretion to issue a parking permit.
In response to my enquiries the Council says it exercises discretion on a case-by-case basis. It has also confirmed that Mr X’s application is the only case where it has exercised discretion to issue a parking permit without the required documentation in the last 12 months.
Analysis The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether Mr X should have a parking permit; that is the Council’s job. We can only consider whether the Council assessed Mr X’s application correctly. We cannot criticise a council where officers have followed the correct procedures and reached a reasoned decision.
The Council’s website sets out the terms and conditions that apply to resident parking permits. This includes the documentary proofs required to qualify for a permit. Mr X considers the specified documents are too restrictive, but it is for the Council to determine how it will operate its parking scheme. The Council must be satisfied an applicant is entitled to a parking permit for a particular car.
Although Mr X was unable to provide the specified documentation the Council has considered the evidence Mr X has provided and exercised discretion to give him a parking permit. This is an appropriate response.
I recognise Mr X believes the Council should have exercised discretion sooner, but note it made this decision within a week of Mr X providing a letter from his employers. I do not consider there was any delay on the part of the Council.
I also note that Mr X says he was advised by parking services to request a temporary permit while his application was being considered. This allowed Mr X to continue to park near his home until he received the new permit.
Final decision
There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s request to transfer his parking permit.
Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman