Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint arising from a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention. The complainant had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice. We are unlikely to find other fault has caused the complainant injustice that would justify the Ombudsman’s involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs B, has complained about a penalty charge notice issued to her by the Council for a parking contravention. She believes it was unfair to issue the penalty charge notice because the signage was unclear. She also says she was ‘singled out’ because the Council did not penalise other motorists who had parked in the same area. Mrs B also says the Council failed to deal properly with her complaint and gave her misleading information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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. 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’.
5. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• 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)

6. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures if we cannot deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered what Mrs B said in her complaint and spoken to her. The Council also provided some background information. Mrs B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. The Council enforces parking restrictions and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the Traffic Management Act 2004 and associated Regulations. Councils and motorists must follow these procedures although councils have discretion to stop enforcement or recovery action if they believe there are good reasons to do so.
9. In law, the owner of vehicle is responsible for any penalty charges regardless of who was driving at the time of the contravention. This is most often the person registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) as the keeper of the vehicle. Enforcement authorities will initially send any formal documents using details provided by the DVLA.
10. Mrs B had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) which is a statutory tribunal. An appeal to the TPT is free and relatively easy to use. It is also the way in which Parliament expects people to contest a penalty charge notice. For these reasons, the restriction I describe in paragraph 3 would generally apply.

Analysis

The penalty charge notice

11. The Council issued a penalty charge notice to Mrs B because it believed she had parked where this was not allowed. The penalty charge notice required Mrs B to pay £70 although the Council could accept £35 if she paid withing 14 days.
12. Mrs B wrote to the Council saying why she did not think she should have to pay the penalty charge. The Council responded that it saw no reason to cancel the penalty charge notice. If explained she should either pay £70 (or £35 within 14 days of the letter) or wait for the Council to send a notice to owner to the owner of the vehicle.. On receipt of the notice to owner, the owner could make formal representations to the Council and then appeal to an independent adjudicator, if necessary.
13. The Council also explained it was not obliged to respond to further representations unless they were made by the owner following receipt of the notice to owner.
14. The Council clearly and correctly set Mrs B’s options provided by the statutory procedure. I see no reason Mrs B could not have waited for the notice to owner and appealed against the penalty charge notice to the TPT if she thought it was issued unfairly for any reason. I therefore consider the restriction I describe in paragraph 3 applies to any complaint about the penalty charge notice.

The Council ‘singling out’ Mrs B

15. There is no expectation that a council will be able to issue penalty charge notices to everyone committing a parking contravention at any time. If the Council failed to issue a penalty charge notice for other motorists, I do not consider this would cause injustice to Mrs B. The issue is whether she had parked in contravention of a restriction and this is something for the TPT to decide.
16. The Council has, any case, shown that it did issue other penalty charge notices at the time.
17. The Council has accepted it did not deal with Mrs B’s complaint about being ‘singled out’ in line with its complaints procedures. This was mainly because, as is the case with most councils, it does not usually deal with complaints about penalty charge notices through its complaints procedure as there is a statutory appeal process. The Council has apologised to Mrs B for not clarifying her concerns at an early stage.
18. I do not consider any fault by the Council in its handling of Mrs B’s complaint caused her injustice that would warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint for the reasons given in paragraphs 14 and 18.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman