The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking permit renewal. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or significant injustice to justify investigating.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to renew his parking permit. He says the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments based on his disability-related needs. Instead, the Council enforced a strict “renew it or lose it” policy.
Mr X is unhappy the Council placed him on its waiting list for a permit. He wants the Council to renew his 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 or continue 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant. This includes the complaint correspondence and information from the Council’s website.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
What happened The Council’s website says there is a waiting list for permits in some parking zones. It also says: there is a grace period of seven days for people who renew their permit before the expiry date. Permit holders can then display their expired permit for seven days after its expiry date; and, permit holders in waiting list zones have the same grace period. But, they cannot renew an expired permit. Instead, such permit holders must join the relevant zone’s waiting list before they can reapply.
In early March 2026, Mr X’s permit expired. The Council introduced a waiting zone in Mr X’s area shortly before his permit expired.
Mr X was away for work for a week or two when the renewal date passed. He tried to renew the permit around two weeks after the permit expired.
The Council rejected Mr X’s application. Instead, it added him to the waiting list.
Mr X complained to the Council.
The Council confirmed it could not renew his permit.
My assessment
We will not investigate this complaint. The Council’s terms and conditions say it is the permit holder’s responsibility to renew the permit. This is the case even when the permit holder says they did not receive a reminder. Mr X did not renew his permit before it expired. So, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to treat it as a new application. Mr X lives in an area with a waiting list. The Council correctly placed him on the waiting list. These decisions are in line with its online information about parking permit renewals.
The Council refused Mr X’s request to issue him a permit as a reasonable adjustment. It considered the reasons for Mr X’s late renewal, including the time spent away for work and the impact of his disability on managing any emails received. But, it decided these were not sufficient reasons to justify making an exception. It gave clear reasons for its decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify investigating.
Mr X says the Council’s policy creates a disadvantage to certain Disabled residents.
We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act (“the Act). But, we can consider whether the Council has had due regard to its duties under the Act.
Based on the evidence I have seen, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered its duties under the Act. This is because: the Council will consider reasonable adjustments in terms of how it communicates with Disabled permit holders; for permit holders who cannot access its online account services, the Council can send letters about renewals by post only; for applicants with an online account, the Council sends renewal reminders by email, text and letter. The Council sends a text reminder to permit holders one week before the permit expires if they are yet to renew it. The Council sent these reminders to Mr X before his permit expired. It included information about introducing a permit waiting list in his zone; and, for late renewals, the Council can consider whether there are sufficient reasons to justify making an exception to its waiting list requirement. Mr X accessed this process. The Council decided it would not make an exception. Mr X disagrees with this decision, but this is not evidence of fault.
The Council promptly added Mr X to the waiting list. Mr X is unhappy about the pace he is moving up the list. His position in the queue was over 200 when he joined. There is no guaranteed date for reaching the top of the waitlist. It is likely factors outside the Council’s control affect wait time, such as the number of people who renew or do not renew their permits during any given period. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
We do not usually investigate the Council’s communication and complaint handling alone when we are not investigating the core matters. This includes its handling of reasonable adjustments. Any separable injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to justify our involvement. This is because: the permit had expired before Mr X tried to contact the Council. He told the Council after it expired that he had a disability and preferred receiving letters by post instead of email; and, in any event, the Council sent Mr X two reminders by text and letter before the permit expired.
So, we will not investigate this matter.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about a parking permit renewal. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman