The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council requesting additional information as part of a check on parking permit eligibility. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and the complainant can complain to the Information Commissioner. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant would like.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council asked for information about two parking permits even though it was originally only checking one permit. Mr X describes this as an abuse of power and a ‘fishing trip’. Mr X wants staff to be dismissed and reprimanded.
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 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council does random checks to make sure that parking permits are still valid and correct. The Council asked Mr X to provide information in relation to a permit. Mr X asked which car the enquiry related to as he has two permits for two cars. The Council checked his account and saw that he has two permits. The Council asked Mr X to provide information, the V5, for both cars.
Mr X provided the V5 for both cars but also complained. He said the Council was wrong to extend the checks to both cars. He says it is an abuse of power and an invasion of his privacy.
In response the Council explained it does checks to ensure people are using the permit scheme correctly and that permits remain issued to people who are eligible. It agreed it had initially intended to check one car/permit but this was extended to both permits when Mr X highlighted the second car. The Council referred to the permit terms and conditions which state the Council may require a resident to supply evidence to verify eligibility. The Council confirmed it had finished checking Mr X’s permits.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The policy states the Council can ask for evidence in relation to permits to confirm eligibility. This means the Council can ask for evidence in relation to one or both permits.
Mr X says his privacy has been breached. If Mr X thinks his personal data has been compromised by the request for information for the second permit then he can complain to the ICO. It is reasonable to expect him to do this because the ICO is the appropriate body to consider issues relating to personal data and privacy.
Finally, I will not investigate this complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X would like. Even if there was evidence of fault (which there is not) we have no power to intervene in personnel issues and cannot arrange for someone to be dismissed or reprimanded.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant would like, and because Mr X can complain to the ICO.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman