Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his appeal against an excess charge notice. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his appeal against an excess charge notice (ECN) for a parking contravention.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X parked in a Council-operated ‘pay and display’ car park in March 2019 but did not realise he needed a parking ticket. A parking warden acting for the car park observed his car without a valid ticket and issued him an ECN. This required Mr X to pay a fine of £40 or appeal to the Council with the reasons he thought the ECN should be cancelled. Failure to pay an ECN can result in prosecution at the magistrates’ court.
5. Mr X appealed against the ECN by writing to the Council but the Council refused his appeal. It explained it was Mr X’s responsibility to comply with the terms of use of the car park and that there is sufficient signage to warn members of the public of the need to pay and display. It asked Mr X to pay the £40 charge by 21 May 2019 and stated “Failure to pay by the date specified will result in the increased amount of £60 being payable.” The Council also told Mr X “Unless new evidence or information is being provided, there is no further appeal against this excess charge except in the Magistrates Court.”
6. Mr X sent the Council a further appeal on 19 May 2019 but complains he has not received a response. He separately received a letter from the Council’s contractors on 23 August 2019 advising the amount owed was now £60, but says he had assumed the matter was on hold until he received a response to his further appeal. He paid the ECN at that point to avoid further escalation and court action but believes the Council should cancel the ECN or at least reimburse the additional £20 he has paid.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. It is the responsibility of any motorist using a public car park to ensure they are complying with its terms of use. The Council has provided evidence to show there are signs warning of the need to pay and while I accept Mr X did not see them I have seen nothing to suggest this was the result of any fault by the Council.
8. The Council has discretion to cancel an ECN at any stage but this does not mean it must do so in every case. Its response to Mr X’s appeal explains the reasons why it decided not to cancel the ECN and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it considered the case.
9. The evidence shows the Council took four months to respond to Mr X’s further appeal and this is likely fault. But it did not cause Mr X significant injustice and does not warrant further investigation.
10. The Council’s response to Mr X’s initial appeal explained there was no further appeal right at that stage unless new evidence or information was being provided and that Mr X must pay by 21 May 2019 or the fine would increase. Mr X contacted the Council to appeal further one working day before 21 May but he did not raise any new issues and could not reasonably expect it to respond before the deadline for payment. Mr X says he expected the case to be put on hold but the Council did not say it would do this. The amount of the increase (£20) is also not significant enough to warrant our continued involvement in this matter.
11. Mr X says he has still not received any response to his second appeal but the Council has provided a copy of its letter dated 18 September 2019 which confirms it will not cancel the PCN for the reasons set out in its earlier letter. The Council’s letter confirmed receipt of Mr X’s payment and that the matter was closed. I have now sent a copy of the letter to Mr X and in the absence of fault in the Council’s decision not to cancel the PCN it is not for us to say the decision is incorrect.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman