Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alledged failure by the Council to take tougher enforcement action against contraventions to traffic parking restrictions. This is because the Council’s enforcement practices are consistent with the applicable traffic management legislation and policy frameworks. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation of the issues.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr X) complains about an alledged failure by the Council to take appropriate enforcement action against drivers repeatedly contravening parking violations on a street close to where he lives. He says the Council’s approach to enforcement by issuing penalty charge notices (PCN) is not working due to it failing to secure compliance with parking restrictions.
2. In summary, Mr X says vehicles parked in breach of parking restrictions are unsightly and cause obstruction to pavements. As a desired outcome, Mr X wants the Council to be take stronger enforcement action including by towing vehicles parked illegally, in addition to perusing penalty charges.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Civil enforcement of parking traffic contraventions are dealt with under the Traffic Management Act 2004 which is supported by statutory guidance that sets out the relevant policy framework and matters that local authorities must have regard to when exercising their powers. Under these frameworks, the law and policy objectives make provision for local authorities to enforce alledged contraventions by issuing proportionate penalty charges and, where necessary, seek recovery of charges including through the courts. However, a central part of this prescribed process is that the recipient of a PCN may challenge that a contravention has occurred by making informal and formal representations with the local authority, as well as exercising their right of appeal to a statutory tribunal.
6. I recognise the points made my Mr X, but the Council’s enforcement process is consistent with the relevant legislation enacted by Parliament and national policy objectives. There is no evidence to suggest the Council is not seeking recovery of charges where a PCN has been issued. However, this must be viewed in the context that when a PCN is issued, this only amounts to an allegation that a contravention has occurred and it may be withdrawn by the Council following consideration of representations made by the recipient. Stronger enforcement action as suggested by Mr X, such as the towing of vehicles at a cost to the vehicle keeper and/or driver would likely be disproportionate and subject a recipient to a detriment without fist being able to exercise their right to challenge the contravention alledged. In my view, the Council has appropriately explained the process it follows and the need for this to be proportionate.
7. In addition, I am satisfied on the available evidence that the Council has been responsive to Mr X’s concerns, including by carrying out visits when alledged contravention issues have been reported and assessing the effectiveness of other measures such as installing pavement bollards. I also note the Council is reviewing whether to increase the amount of penalty charge payable to secure improved compliance. In my view, these actions are consistent with the measures provided for in traffic management legislation and our expectations of local authorities. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation of the issues complained about.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the restriction I outline at paragraph three (above) applies.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman