Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

Westminster City Council

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Other Reference 22-010-894 Sector Transport And Highways Category Parking And Other Penalties Decided 29 November 2022

View Westminster Council scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to cancel Mr X’s resident’s parking permit for his van because it is too high. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

The complaint

The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council was wrong to cancel the resident’s parking permit he had held for his vehicle since 2017. He says it does fit the criteria for a permit and that the Council did not give him enough notice to make alternative arrangements for the van.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

How I considered this complaint

I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including its response to the complaint.

I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

The Council cancelled Mr X’s resident’s parking permit for his van because it is too high. Mr X disputed the Council’s reading of the relevant criteria and said his van carries passengers and does not carry goods.

The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and explained the criteria are not intended to be inferred as being “either/or” but that any or all could apply to a vehicle.

While Mr X is disappointed with the Council’s decision, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it. That Mr X does not use his vehicle to carry goods does not stop it from being a goods carrying vehicle and it is too high to fit the relevant criteria.

Mr X says there are other vehicles around like his with parking permits and that the Council has treated him as an exception. However, the Council has explained it carries out spot checks and if he has details of other vehicles that may be in breach of the criteria, he can send it details of them.

The Council gave Mr X two weeks to find alternative arrangements for his van following notice that it would be cancelling his permit. While Mr X may have wished for more time, this is the time the Council deemed reasonable in the circumstances and it is not our role to review the merits of this decision.

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving Westminster City Council

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-008-007 Upheld
25-023-483 Other
25-022-063 Other
25-011-325 Other
25-008-803 Upheld
View all decisions for this organisation