The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to renew a parking permit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice. In addition, we could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council will not let him renew a parking permit. He says there is no good reason to refuse his request and he would not have bought the property if he had known permits were not allowed. Mr X wants the Council to renew the permit.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence, the planning decision and information from the Council’s website about car-free developments. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
The Council granted planning consent for two houses in 2019. The planning consent included a statement that the development would be car-free and the occupiers would be ineligible for parking permits.
Mr X bought one these houses in March 2021. He was unaware of the car-free status and says he would not have bought the house if he had known. He successfully applied for permits in March and April 2021. One of the permits has expired. Mr X has been unable to renew it because of the car-free status of the development.
Mr X complained. In response the Council confirmed it is correct that he cannot renew either permit because he lives in a car-free development. The Council referred to the planning decision and to the parking permit website which shows his address is restricted. The Council explained he had been able to buy a permit because he applied before his address was added as a restricted address. This meant he got a permit when he was ineligible.
Mr X disagrees with the decision. He and his partner need to drive. He says there is plenty of parking space and other houses in the road have permits.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The planning decision says the property will be treated as car-free and the occupiers will be ineligible for parking permits. This information was disclosed as part of the land search and conveyancing. This means the Council provided information so the purchaser would be aware of the ineligibility for permits. It is unfortunate Mr X was unaware but this is not due to fault by the Council. Mr X disagrees that restrictions are needed but his views cannot alter the condition of the planning consent.
Mr X had a permit for a few months due to a delay by the Council in updating the database. This, however, has not caused an injustice requiring an investigation. The delay did not affect Mr X’s decision to buy the property and, as I have said, the car-free status was disclosed during the search. In addition, through no fault by Mr X, he has benefitted from permits he was not eligible for.
Finally, I will not start an investigation because we cannot ask the Council to renew the permits as that would be contrary to the planning consent and the car-free status of the development.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman