The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly granted him a parking permit and has refused to refund the unused portion of his permit following his move out of the borough. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council issued him a parking permit for a car park which is more than 300m from his home, contrary to its permit terms. He also complains the Council has failed to provide him a pro-rata refund for the unused period of his permit following his move to another borough.
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 may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X applied for a parking permit because he wanted to be able to park in the car park. Although Mr X did not strictly meet the criteria for the permit we would not say the Council’s decision to grant one amounted to fault. We also could not say the decision caused Mr X injustice, as it is what he wanted.
The permit application form clearly set out that the permit was non-refundable and Mr X agreed to this when he applied. The Council’s refusal to refund Mr X part of the permit cost is in accordance with these terms and does not amount to fault.
While Mr X considers the term is “unfair” and breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 we could not reach a view on this point. Whether a contract term is unfair requires interpretation of the law and this is a matter for the courts. Mr X may also report the matter to the Competition and Markets Authority to review.
Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman