Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. The Council has cancelled the notice, apologised to Mr X and put in place further training to improve its practices. This provides a suitable remedy for Mr X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly issued him a penalty charge notice (PCN). He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council issued Mr X a PCN for a parking contravention, which he disputes, in March 2017. He challenged the PCN immediately and the Council cancelled it in April 2017. The Council accepts it issued the PCN in error but Mr X is not happy with its explanation. He believes the Council’s civil enforcement officer (CEO) issued it deliberately despite knowing he had committed no contravention and says the Council has used fabrication and lies to cover it up. He has complained to the Council over a period of two years and received a final response referring him to the Ombudsman in September 2018.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. By law all PCNs carry a right of appeal and it is this process which is intended to resolve disputes over their validity. It is not intended that when a council accepts a PCN was issued in error, and cancels it, we should look separately at the reason for its issue or provide a further remedy. The Council properly followed the appeals process in this case and while Mr X is not satisfied with the Council’s explanation, his injustice lay in the cost of the PCN and this is now resolved.
7. Mr X has chosen to pursue the matter for more than two years after the cancellation but this was entirely his choice. The statutory appeals process does not provide for any further remedy over and above the cancellation of a PCN. So even if the matter had gone to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, his remedy would lie in cancellation of the PCN which the Council provided more than two years ago.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s actions provide a suitable remedy for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman