The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant is ineligible for parking permits. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to issue a parking permit and says the Council did not give her a chance to explain why she needs a permit.
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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence, the permit policy and information from the Council about when Ms X’s home was built. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
People who live in some streets in the county are eligible for parking permits. Not every address is eligible. The Council’s website has a list of eligible properties and advises people to check the parking situation before buying or renting a property. The website also explains that it can only issue permits to an address included in the Traffic Order.
The Traffic Order was created in 2010 and lists the eligible properties. Ms X’s home was built after 2010 and her home is not listed as a property eligible for permits. Properties built within the area after the introduction of the permit scheme in 2010 are not eligible for permits.
Ms X asked for a permit and made submissions via a local councillor. When she escalated her complaint she asked for an opportunity to present her case. The Council did not ask for more information but repeated that Ms X is not eligible for a permit because her home was developed after the introduction of the scheme. As part of its reply it said it had reviewed the previous correspondence between the Council, Ms X and the councillor.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. This is because the Council’s decision not to issue a permit is consistent with the policy. Ms X’s home is not listed in the Traffic Order so is ineligible for a permit. I appreciate Ms X disagrees with the decision, and has explained why she needs a permit, but we do not act as an appeal body and cannot change the Council’s decision.
I acknowledge Ms X asked the Council for a chance to present her case. It might have been better if the Council had given her a chance to do this before sending its final complaint response. However, the impact of this has not caused an injustice requiring an investigation. This is because the Council reviewed the information Ms X had previously submitted and, whatever Ms X said, it would not alter the fact that her home is ineligible for permits because it is not included in the Traffic Order.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman