Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his complaint that a Council vehicle parked on the road without a pay and display parking ticket. We will not investigate the complaint because the alleged fault has not caused Mr X injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s response to his complaint that a Council vehicle parked on the road without displaying the appropriate pay and display ticket. He says it has misinterpreted a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) by quoting a legal exemption for the vehicle.

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:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X reported to the Council that a Council passenger car had parked on a public road without displaying the appropriate pay and display ticket.
5. The Council told him the car was being used by a parking attendant and that a TRO provided the driver with an exemption so a ticket was not required.
6. Unhappy with the response, Mr X carried out his own research, including making a FOI request, which led him to believe the Council was wrong to say the TRO provided an exemption.
7. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council about the matter. It told him it had made enquiries and was satisfied the vehicle had been used to carry out statutory duties on behalf of the Council and so was not parked in contravention. It did not uphold his complaint about the conduct of members of staff who had dealt with him about the matter.
8. While acknowledging the matter is minor, Mr X complained to us because he says he has lost faith in the Council.

Assessment

9. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and in this case the injustice caused to Mr X by the alleged fault is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.
10. Generally, we will not investigate how a council handled a complaint if we are not investigating the substantive matter and I see no grounds which warrant investigation here.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the alleged fault has not caused Mr X injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman