The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly advised him about cancelling his resident’s parking permit and applying for a new permit. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show the Council’s actions caused Mr X significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council cancelled his resident’s parking permit and issued a new one for his new vehicle. He believes the Council should have transferred his existing permit and that doing so would have saved him money.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issues resident’s parking permits in accordance with the terms and conditions set out on its website. The cost of the first permit depends on the vehicle’s emissions. Any further permits incur a surcharge. The Council can change the details on a parking permit for an administration fee of £15.
Mr X says he visited council offices on 30 June 2023 to update his resident’s parking permit details. He had two parking permits, one dating back to September 2021 (Permit 1) and one issued in April 2022 (Permit 2). Permit 2 expired on 27 April 2022 and Mr X applied to renew it on 10 May 2023. Because he already held Permit 1 he paid a £50 surcharge to renew Permit 2.
Mr X replaced the vehicle listed in Permit 1 and during his visit on 30 June 2023 the Council cancelled the permit. He then applied for a new permit- Permit 3. It is unclear if the Council cancelled Permit 1 before Mr X applied for Permit 3, but because Permit 2 was still active Mr X paid a surcharge of £25 for Permit 3. Mr X has since applied to renew Permit 3 and paid a further £25 surcharge for this.
Mr X believes the Council should have changed the details on Permit 1 to show his new vehicle details rather than cancelling Permit 1 and issuing Permit 3. He says this would have saved him money.
We cannot reach any view on what Mr X asked for when he visited the council offices on 30 June 2023 or whether the Council should have advised him to change the details of Permit 1, rather than cancelling it and applying for a new permit for the new vehicle. We cannot therefore say the £25 surcharges he paid for Permit 3 and the £15 administration fee he paid to cancel Permit 1 are the result of any fault by the Council.
The amounts involved are also not significant enough to warrant investigation. Mr X says he has paid approximately £100 in surcharges he should not have paid, but this is not the case. Even if the Council had changed the details on Permit 1 Mr X would have saved only the £25 surcharge he paid for Permit 3, plus a further £25 surcharge to renew the permit six months later. He would still have paid the £15 administration fee to change the details on Permit 1 and the £50 surcharge he paid for Permit 2.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman