Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council when the complainant forgot to renew his parking permit. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to use his right of appeal to a statutory tribunal if he wants to challenge the penalty charge, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council administered its permit scheme.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, is unhappy the Council issued him with a penalty charge notice (PCN) when he forgot to renew his parking permit. As a long-term resident of the area, he thinks it is acting unfairly and unreasonably by not cancelling the PCN on this occasion. Mr B also thinks the Council should send a renewal reminder before a resident’s parking permit expires.

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 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. We 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. And 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)
5. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London. The TPT comprises individually appointed independent adjudicators and a small team of administrative staff who work on their behalf.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered:
• Mr B’s complaint to the Ombudsman, and the additional information he submitted on 14 January 2020;
• Mr B’s comments on my draft decision, during a telephone conversation on 28 February 2020.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

7. There is a set procedure councils must follow when enforcing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them.
8. When a council issues a PCN, the motorist has 28 days to either pay the penalty charge or submit an ‘informal challenge’. For the first 14 days after the PCN is issued, the motorist may pay at a discounted rate of 50% of the full fine.
9. If the motorist submits an informal challenge and the Council decides not to accept it, it will write to the motorist and explain why. Councils may also then re‑offer the 50% discount where the motorist submitted their informal challenge within 14 days.
10. If the motorist accepts the Council’s reasons for rejecting the challenge, 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 (now at the full rate) or make ‘formal representations’ against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to the TPT.
11. With regard to the Council’s parking permit scheme, the terms and conditions say a renewal invitation letter will not be sent prior to the expiry of a current permit. It is the responsibility of the permit holder to remember to apply for their new permit one month before the expiry date of the current permit. Applicants must agree to these terms and conditions when they submit their permit application.

Summary of what happened

12. The Council issued Mr B with a PCN for parking without displaying a valid permit; his permit had expired over a month ago.
13. Mr B paid the charge at the £25 discounted rate, but also complained to the Council about the PCN and that it had not sent him a permit renewal reminder.
14. The Council explained why it would not cancel the PCN, and offered to refund the £25 to enable Mr B to then pursue the statutory appeal process. It also highlighted what the terms and conditions of the permit scheme say about renewal reminders.

Assessment

15. I appreciate Mr B thinks the Council is acting unfairly by not cancelling the PCN. But if he wants to challenge the PCN, it is open to him to accept the £25 refund, and then follow the appeal process detailed in paragraphs 5 and 10 above. An appeal to the TPT is free and relatively easy to use. It is also the way in which Parliament expects people to challenge PCN’s. For these reasons, the restriction I describe in paragraph 4 above applies to any parts of Mr B’s complaint about the PCN itself, and I consider it reasonable to expect him to use this right of appeal.
16. I also appreciate that Mr B disagrees with the Council’s decision to impose parking restrictions in his area, and that he thinks it is wrong not to send permit renewal reminders.
17. But the fact remains that parking restrictions have existed in Mr B’s road for a few years, and it is not the Ombudsman’s role to dictate whether the Council’s permit scheme should include the sending of renewal reminders; that is a matter for the Council to decide. Mr B would have agreed to the terms and conditions of the scheme when applying for a permit, and the Council has acted in accordance with those terms and conditions. I therefore find insufficient evidence of fault to warrant the Ombudsman investigating Mr B’s concerns about the absence of renewal reminders.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is because it is reasonable to expect him to follow the statutory appeal process if he wants to challenge the PCN, and as there was no requirement for the Council to send a permit renewal reminder I do not consider it has acted with fault in the way it has administered the permit scheme.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman