Leicestershire County Council (19 017 704)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 23 Mar 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a PCN issued in error, and the subsequent time, effort and cost the complainant spent on resolving the matter. The Council has already taken satisfactory action to address the complaint.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr D, says he had to spend over 10 minutes of his time, as well as money, on calling the Council about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued in error.
  2. Mr D does not think the Council’s apology is sincere or acceptable. Instead, he thinks he should receive £25 compensation to reflect the distress, time and cost he incurred in seeking to resolve the matter whilst he was looking after his unwell pregnant daughter and his grandchild.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use 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 the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
    • are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered:
    • Mr D’s letter of complaint to the Ombudsman, and the accompanying supporting documents he submitted;
    • Mr D’s comments on a draft version of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

Legal background

  1. 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’. 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 the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
  2. This appeal process is the way in which Parliament expects people to contest a PCN.

Summary of what happened

  1. Mr D was issued with a PCN, on a day when the parking restrictions on his road did not apply. Mr D called Leicestershire County Council, which operates the administration service for PCN’s across the county.
  2. Mr D says the officer who took the call kept repeating that he would have to appeal against the PCN, and that when he asked for the Chief Executive’s details the line went dead. Mr D called back, and a supervisor said the first officer had put him on hold whilst she sought advice, and had not cut him off. Mr D says the Council’s call recording would demonstrate that the first officer had not informed him that she was putting him on hold. He thinks this is shocking customer service.
  3. The supervisor informed Mr D that several PCN’s had been issued in error that morning and were being cancelled. Mr D complained to the Chief Executive.
  4. The Chief Executive apologised that the wrongly issued parking ticket had caused Mr D distress, and said enforcement officers (which are employed by the District Council) had been reminded when restrictions at the location were enforceable. The Chief Executive reiterated that Mr D’s first call had been put on hold, and that the PCN had been cancelled.

Assessment

  1. I note Mr D feels the Council displayed a lack of empathy for the time, cost and stress he says he incurred by having to call the Council about the PCN whilst he was looking after relatives.
  2. But I am also mindful that motorists are normally expected to follow the appeal process (detailed above), if they wish to challenge a PCN, even if the PCN was issued as a result of human error. In addition, whilst I acknowledge Mr D’s concerns about the telephone calls, I am not persuaded the extent of the injustice is so significant as to warrant the Ombudsman looking into this part of the complaint further.
  3. Overall, (and with reference to the second bullet point of paragraph 3 above) I am therefore satisfied that the cancellation of the PCN, the reminder issued to enforcement officers, and the Chief Executive’s apology, all amount to a satisfactory resolution to the complaint.
  4. As such, I do not consider the Ombudsman should pursue Mr D’s complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr D’s complaint. This is because the Council has already taken action which is reasonable way to address the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings