Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a lost parking ticket. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s actions in relation to a parking ticket which he lost.
2. He says being stuck at the barrier without a ticket was stressful, humiliating and potentially unsafe. He says he has spent significant time pursuing the complaint and he is worried others will have the same experience.
3. He would like the Council to:

• Make a symbolic payment to reflect his distress, time and trouble,
• Implement a new system for managing lost tickets,
• Issue guidance to staff on communicating with customers with lost tickets,
• Publish a timetable for the roll out of the planned Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained the car park operative followed the Council’s lost-ticket procedure even though he had his receipt. The Council explained a ticket is needed to exit the car park and the lost-ticket procedure is applied consistently. To manage congestion, the car park operative raised the barrier so Mr X could exit.
8. The Council informed Mr X it plans to introduce ANPR technology. This will allow it to link tickets to vehicles and will remove the need for a lost ticket process in cases like Mr X’s.
9. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern but where they have not suffered injustice.
10. As Mr X was not required to make a lost-ticket payment, I do not consider he suffered significant enough injustice to justify our involvement. As the Council already plans system improvements, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
11. The Council has spoken to the individuals involved about their communication. It acknowledged the distress and embarrassment caused and apologised. It has reminded all staff of best practice when communicating with customers. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
12. The Council acknowledged difficulties with the lifts at the centre and explained these were the responsibility of the centre. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
13. Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman