Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that a property owned by the complainant, and rented to tenants, cannot have more than two parking permits. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision that a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) that he owns with a capacity to house five people, cannot have more than two parking permits. Mr X says the decision contradicts the terms of his HMO licence and is at odds with the Council’s objectives and values. Mr X wants the Council to issue more permits.

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 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and parking permit rules. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X is the landlord of an HMO. The property is licenced by the Council and can accommodate five unrelated people. Mr X has a parking permit to allow him to park when he visits in his capacity as the landlord. He does not visit every day but needs somewhere to park when he does visit.
5. Mr X complained to the Council that it will not issue more than two permits. He said the rule makes it hard for him to rent every room. He said that not renting every room will affect him financially and have a negative impact on the local economy. Mr X said the decision is at odds with the Council’s objectives and with the fact that the Council has issued a licence for five residents.
6. The Council explained the rules state that every property, including HMOs, can have no more than two permits. It suggested Mr X could give up his permit which would free up a permit for residents. The Council said Mr X could use one of the bays which provide parking for two hours, visit when the permit restrictions are not in force, or use a visitors permit. It explained the HMO licensing rules are unrelated to the permit rules and its broad policy statements are not a determining factor in the allocation of permits.
7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The rules state that no property, including HMOs, can have more than two permits. Further, the HMO rules do not state a property must be issued with a permit for every resident and there are no links between the licensing conditions and the permit rules. The Council’s decision not to issue the property with more permits reflects the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. We do not act as an appeal body and we cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with. In addition, the Council acted appropriately by suggesting alternative parking options to Mr X.
8. Mr X disagrees with the permit rules and says the Council is contradicting its policies and objectives. It is, however, for the Council to set the terms and conditions for the permit scheme. Mr X could speak to local councillors, and perhaps raise the issue of the Council’s objections, and explain he thinks the permit limit should be changed. But, it would be for the Council, not us, to decide whether to change the rules.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman