Summary: Mr X complained the Council acted unfairly by not issuing parking contravention notices for cars parked on a verge by garages but had issued him with a notice in the same situation. We will stop investigating his complaint as the injustice claimed to Mr X is not so great that the Ombudsman would be likely to recommend a remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is not acting fairly in its control of parked cars on a grass verge subject to a Traffic Regulation Order. He says it is issuing parking charge notices to privately owned cars but failing to do so to control extensive parking by cars belonging to local car traders. It has failed to adequately explain to him why it is unable to act fairly and evenly to control this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to continue with an investigation if we believe the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained or the injustice is not significant enough to justify the cost of our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint.
4. I asked the Council questions about the complaint and considered information it provided.
5. I gave the Council and Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered Mr X’s comments before writing my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Councils can control parking with Traffic Regulation Orders and can enforce these using Parking Contravention Notices (PCNs). Councils can decide whether to issue PCNs in a particular circumstance. They do not have a legal duty to do so.
7. Mr X parked on a road where parking is restricted by a Traffic Regulation Order, preventing parking in certain areas. A Council Civil Enforcement Officer issued him with a PCN.
8. Mr X complained to the Council that it unfairly treated unauthorised parking in the same road by local car traders. He said it was not issuing PCNs to cars parked in similar places by the car traders’ garages.
9. The Council replied saying it could only issue PCNs to cars with registration plates but could not put PCNs on new, unregistered cars. It would refer concerns about car sales from the highway to the highway department. It explained how Mr X could appeal his PCN. It also corresponded with Mr X’s Member of Parliament.
10. Mr X complained again at stage two, sending photographs of trader’s cars parked on the verge showing registration plates. He asked if the Council was allowing them to break the law. The Council replied explaining its powers regarding towing away vehicles, and that different rules applied in different areas.
11. The Council and Mr X continued to correspond and the Council eventually referred him to the Ombudsman. Since his complaint, the Council put in place a new TRO to control parking by car traders in the area.
12. Mr X told me the Council was applying one rule for the public and another for garages. It had not answered his questions. He said the Council had not adequately explained why cars owned by the garage with registration plates had not been given PCNs. He felt the Council was discriminatory in how it issued PCNs.

My findings

13. Before we start or continue an investigation, we need evidence both of fault, and of a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
14. The Council told Mr X how he could challenge the PCN. He did not do so. His claimed injustice is therefore that he is being treated unfairly by the Council.
15. The Council has discretion to issue PCNs. It has no duty to issue Notices. It has told Mr X why its enforcement officers decided not to issue tickets to certain cars. It has since further controlled the situation with a new TRO.
16. There is, therefore, insufficient injustice to Mr X for me to further investigate the fault he claims in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have stopped my investigation and do not uphold Mr X’s complaint. The injustice claimed to Mr X is not so great that the Ombudsman would be likely to recommend a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman