Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s issue of a penalty charge notice. If Mr X disputed the contravention it would have been reasonable for him to appeal, and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation into the actions of the officer who issued the notice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. He also complains about the civil enforcement officer (CEO) who issued the PCN as he says they were racist towards him.

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)

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. 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

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

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council issued Mr X a PCN for a parking contravention in 2019.
7. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them. When a council issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal; appeals at this stage are known as ‘informal challenges’.
8. If the motorist submits an informal challenge to a PCN and the Council decides not to accept them, it will write to the motorist and explain why. If the motorist accepts the Council’s reasons they may pay the PCN; if not, they may wait for a ‘notice to owner’. This provides a further opportunity for the owner of the vehicle to pay the charge or make ‘formal representations’ against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to London Tribunals.
9. Mr X disputes the PCN as he says the Council’s CEO blocked the entrance to the car park he intended to use. As a result he says he had to park on the footpath to find him. He informally challenged the PCN at the first stage of the appeals process and when the Council did not accept his challenge he paid the PCN at the discounted rate of £55. But Mr X remains unhappy about the PCN and says the Council’s CEO made a racist comment towards him.
10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. If Mr X wished to dispute the PCN further it would have been reasonable for him to follow the appeals process set out above. London Tribunals is better placed to deal with appeals against PCNs and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate Mr X’s complaint.
11. While Mr X alleges racism by the Council’s CEO the Council’s response to his complaint shows it has thoroughly investigated the issue and found no evidence to support the allegation. Its investigation included a review of video footage taken by the CEO’s body-worn camera and it is unlikely we could add to this. If however Mr X has any evidence to show the racist comment allegedly made by the CEO he should provide this to me now.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal against the PCN and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation into the actions of the CEO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman