Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a parking permit issue. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council and an investigation by this office would not be able to add to the response the Council has already provided via its own previous investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the £16 administration fee for amending his parking permit. He also complains the call handler he spoke to on the phone about it was rude to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council about the £16 administration fee he had to pay to change the car registration details on his parking permit after he purchased a new car. He also complained that the call handler he spoke to on the phone about the matter was rude to him. Mr X says he is on a low income and the fee is not justified.
8. In response, the Council explained the administration fee applies to any replacements or alterations of permits and applies to all permit holders irrespective of whether the permit was free of charge when received. This is to cover the costs incurred in dealing with the administrative work involved. It explained it would not waive the fee for Mr X as it needs to apply the charge consistently to all permit holders.
9. The call handler was questioned about the call with Mr X however her recollection differed from the account Mr X provided and she denied being rude to him. The Council confirmed its calls are not recorded and so there is no call recording to consider. It apologised to Mr X that he found the call handler to be rude.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the administration fee for amending the permit. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council. It has applied the charge in line with its published policy which applies to all permit holders. The website clearly states: “Any change to an existing permit or replacement of a lost permit will incur a £16 administration fee.” The Council has explained the reason for the charge and it is a decision it is entitled to make.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s contractor being rude to him during a telephone call. This is because a further investigation by this office would not be able to add to the response the Council has already provided given the differing recollections of the two parties and lack of a call recording.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not add to the response the Council has already provided via its own investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman