Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that a Council civil enforcement officer made a false statement to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. We cannot decide between the conflicting statements of Mr X and the officer and we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X by investigating his complaint further.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council’s civil enforcement officer (CEO) made a false statement to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal as part of his appeal against a penalty charge notice (PCN).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, the Council’s response and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal’s decision. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X appealed against a PCN issued by the Council for an alleged parking contravention. He disputes the contravention and says the CEO did not hand him the PCN; he says he only became aware of it when he received the PCN by post.
5. Mr X says the CEO made a false statement to the Adjudicator at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal who dealt with his appeal. He suggests CCTV and body-camera footage, which is no longer available, would have supported his version of events. The Adjudicator dismissed Mr X’s appeal and ordered Mr X to pay the PCN.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. If Mr X did not agree with the Traffic Penalty Tribunal’s decision on his appeal it was for him to request a review. The Ombudsman cannot overturn the decision and we cannot take Mr X’s statement over that of the CEO or vice versa. This is a point which has been considered as part of Mr X’s appeal and it is unlikely we could achieve anything for Mr X by investigating it further now.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman