The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to continue to issue parking permits which it provided in error for over a decade. This is because the matter has not caused Mr X a significant personal injustice which would merit an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision not to continue to provide parking permits to Mr X, after it did so in error for over a decade.
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) We do not start an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X purchased his property in 2007. The Council provided parking permits for Mr X until 2020, when his permit application was rejected. The Council had issued parking permits to Mr X, in error for over a decade. This is because Mr X’s property is a permit restricted development. This was a condition of the planning permission when the property was converted from a single house to two flats.
Mr X contacted the Council about the rejected permit application in November 2020. In January 2021, the Council told Mr X he was not entitled to a permit due to the restriction set out above. Mr X has been in continued correspondence with the Council on this matter since then. Mr X says he has a legal case to support his view that the Council should remove the restriction on his property. The Council has advised Mr X to seek legal advice on this.
Mr X also complains about the way the Council has corresponded with him on this matter. He says the Council has taken too long to reply to him; passed him between departments and offered him incorrect and disingenuous advice on how to proceed.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the substantive matter complained about has not caused Mr X a significant personal injustice which would merit an investigation. Mr X has benefitted from the Council’s fault as it meant he received parking provision, for over a decade, to which he was not entitled.
The Council has corrected this error and as a result Mr X is back in the position he would have been but for the Council’s fault.
If Mr X considers he has a legal argument to support his view he should continue to receive permits then this is a matter he may wish to pursue in the courts. I understand the Council has previously advised Mr X of this and has signposted him to seek legal advice.
Whilst Mr X complains about the Council’s correspondence with him on this matter, we will not consider complaint handling issues where we are not considering the substantive matter. This is because it is not an effective use of limited public funds to do so.
The complaint also lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late. The law says a complaint should be made to us within 12 months of the person affected first becoming aware of the matter. However, this is not a matter we would investigate even if the complaint were made in time due to the fault not causing Mr X a significant personal injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman