The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to cancel Mr X’s business parking permit which he has had since 2022. He says the Council relied on unclear terms of its policy and it has now changed the terms which restricts access to the scheme for his business.
The complaint
Mr X says he obtained a permit for his business to park using its Silver Business parking Permit which is operated through a phone app. The permits have terms and conditions including that the business must solely be based in Mole Valley and employ less than 20 employees. He says the Council has now cancelled his permit and it used clause in the terms and conditions which were unclear. He believes the Council should at least allow the permits to run until expired and that the enforcement was unreasonable.
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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I have also considered the permits policy.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says his business parking permit was cancelled unreasonably when the Council told him that he did not meet the terms and conditions of its use. He says the terms attached to the permit when he obtained it in 2022 did not specify the reasons why the Council has cancelled it. The Council says that his business does not operate exclusively in its area and that he does not have a trade frontage which relies on passing trade and requires parking access. Mr X says these are only implied terms and not specific to the agreement.
We will not investigate this complaint. Mr X says he obtained the permits in good faith and has not abused the system. The Council says the permits were issued in good faith and to assist businesses in genuine need of support. The Council carried out a recent review of the scheme and of 85 businesses with permits 50% were removed from the scheme. It says previous good faith approvals without sufficient monitoring led to the system being used for unintended purposes and it has now clarified the terms to focus on local support.
The terms and conditions always made it clear that the scheme is discretionary and that the Council reserved the right to cancel a permit at any time with seven days’ notice. The scheme operates under discretionary powers not a statutory duty and the Council has given Mr X an opportunity to challenge its decision but this did not change its view.
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to cancel Mr X’s business parking permit which he has had since 2022. He says the Council relied on unclear terms of its policy and it has now changed the terms which restricts access to the scheme for his business.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman