Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about discrimination relating to a parking ticket. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to consider making reasonable adjustments in relation to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The Act says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
5. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X lives in an area where parking requires a permit. Mr X’s usual vehicle was involved in an accident. Mr X rented a van and parked it outside his home without a parking permit. The Council issued Mr X a PCN.
9. Mr X asked the Council to wave the PCN because he has health conditions which affect his memory and concentration. He explained he is an authorised permit holder and was parked outside his home but had forgotten to request a temporary permit for the vehicle.
10. The Council decided not to wave the PCN. Mr X paid the PCN at the reduced rate to avoid further fees.
11. Mr X complains the Council did not take his health condition into account and discriminated against him. Mr X says he felt pressured to pay the PCN and did so under duress. Mr X says his complaint is not about liability for the PCN but is about the way the Council treated him.
12. While the Council should consider reasonable adjustments, they do not need to implement adjustments they decide are not reasonable. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to wave the PCN as a reasonable adjustment. Rather than pay the PCN, Mr X could have challenged it by putting in formal representations and appealing to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. I have seen insufficient evidence of discrimination by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman