Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to complaints about the Penalty Charge Notice process and its complaint handling. This is because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council or any evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs Y, complains about the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) process and the Council’s complaint handling process. She says the Council did not listen or respond properly to her complaints and bullied her.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read what Mrs Y has told us about her complaint and the information provided by the Council. I invited Mrs Y to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mrs Y’s partner was issued with a PCN. He is the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned.
5. In October 2019 Mrs Y made a formal complaint to the Council about the way it deals with PCNs and the appeal procedure. She said the process was threatening and bullying. She asked the parking team to halt all progress with the PCN issued to her partner until this matter was resolved.
6. The Council’s parking complaints team replied to Mrs Y. It said the consideration of a PCN was a statutory process, set out by law. Any challenge to a PCN had to be made in accordance with this process and could not be dealt with through the Council’s complaints procedure. It confirmed the PCN would not be placed on hold. It suggested the registered keeper follow the information on the PCN and provided the link to the relevant guidance on the Council’s website.
7. Mrs Y had further communications with the parking complaints team. In December the team confirmed the registered keeper should follow the information on the notices received and it would not reply to further correspondence about the PCN.
8. Mrs Y then contacted the Council’s Chief Executive’s office. She was unhappy with the way the parking complaints team had dealt with her complaint about the PCN process and would not put the enforcement process on hold. The Chief Executive’s office replied the same day. It confirmed that all PCNs were covered by the statutory procedure and any dispute about a PCN had to be made through this statutory process. Matters relating to a challenge to a PCN were specifically excluded from the Council’s complaints procedure. It said it was unable to assist her further.
9. Mrs Y was unhappy with this response. She told the Council it had not addressed her concerns, she had been subjected to bullying tactics and she did not accept her complaint was closed.

Assessment

10. I appreciate Mrs Y believes the PCN process is threatening and intimidating. However, this is not the Council’s fault. It is required by law to follow this process, which is set out in the Traffic Management Act 2004. This means only Parliament has the power to change the PCN process. Mrs Y could approach her MP if she thinks the process should be changed.
11. The Council correctly explained the position in its responses to Mrs Y’s complaint about the PCN process and her complaint about the way it had handled this. It told Mrs Y the registered keeper would have to challenge the PCN through the statutory process and provided information about how he should do this. The Council’s responses were clear and appropriate. I do not find any suggestion of fault by the Council in the way it responded to Mrs Y’s complaints.
12. Mrs Y is not the registered keeper of the vehicle for which the PCN was issued. She was not liable for the payment of the penalty. She has not been caused any personal injustice by the Council’s responses to her complaints or from the PCN.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely I would find fault or injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman