The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council refusing his application for a residents parking permit. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Mr B says after moving into his current flat he found out it did not include a parking space within the building. Mr B complains the Council has refused his request for a residents parking permit for the controlled parking zone next to the building. Mr B also says the Council was wrong to grant planning permission for the building knowing there would be issues with parking. Mr B would like the Council to provide parking arrangements for residents of the building who do not have a parking space.
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 Mr B.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr B’s building is not included in the controlled parking zone near the building. The Council also says planning permission for this development included a condition that no resident of the development would be eligible for a residents parking permit for nearby controlled parking zones.
So, the Council was not at fault for refusing to issue Mr B with a parking permit for this controlled parking zone.
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the building where he lives.
This is because Mr B would not have been affected by this decision if he had decided not to move into a flat in this building.
In English law there is a principle of caveat emptor which translates as “let the buyer beware”. The rule places the responsibility on the buyer of a property to carry out all necessary checks before purchasing it.
So, we would generally expect someone in Mr B’s position to find out about parking arrangements, both within the building and nearby, before agreeing to a purchase or tenancy. This would have given Mr B the option of not moving into this property if he had concerns about parking.
So, the alleged injustice suffered by Mr B is not a direct result of fault by the Council.
Final decision
For the above reasons we will not investigate this complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman