The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant a parking permit. This is because the complaint dates back to 2016 and is late. There is also insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.
The complaint
The complainant (Ms Q) complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a residents parking permit. She says she moved into a new social housing development in 2016 and was granted an on-street parking permit only for this to be withdrawn by the Council in 2017. Ms Q further explains the Council never told her the property did not include the option to buy on-street parking.
In summary, Ms Q says the alleged fault has significantly impacted her life, daily living activities and mental health. She says the uncertainty surrounding parking arrangements has led to heightened stress and anxiety, affecting her daily functioning. As a desired outcome, Ms Q wants the Council to take accountability for the alleged failings, provide clear advice going forward about parking at the development and rectify the issue by reinstating her permit.
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 impact on the per-son 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 doing so. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended).
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The legal restriction I outline at Paragraph four (above) inserts a time limit for a member of the public to bring their complaint to the attention of the Ombudsman. Its intention is two-fold: to provide us with the best opportunity of arriving at a robust, evidence-based decision on complaints about recent events and to ensure fairness by enabling us to decline an investigation into historic matters, which could and should have formed the basis of a complaint to us far sooner. The complaint concerns what Ms Q was or was not told and given notice of in 2016. This makes the complaint historical and it is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate historical issues. The Council has previously considered the issues subject to this complaint and informed of her right to bring the complaint to the Ombudsman. There are no good reasons to exercise our discretion.
In any event, though the Council acknowledge Ms Q was not informed she could not buy on-street parking when initially considering moving to the property, it says she was given notice of this within the terms of her tenancy agreement. I see no evidence of fault by the Council by not informing Ms Q that there was no option to buy on street parking prior to her receiving a tenancy agreement which did give proper notice of the issue in dispute. Despite the complaint being historical, there is insufficient evidence of fault were we to investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because it is historical and there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman