Summary: Mr X complained, on behalf of Miss Y, about three parking tickets issued by the Council. The Ombudsman found no fault in the way the Council issued parking tickets to Miss Y or considered her appeals.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained, on behalf of Miss Y, about three parking tickets issued by the Council. He said the Council failed to follow the correct procedure, and wrongly processed one of the parking tickets after he paid to release the car from the Council’s impound.
2. The Council’s decisions caused Miss Y distress and she was put to time and trouble trying to resolve matters.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated two of the parking tickets, which I shall refer to as tickets B and C.
4. I have not investigated the first parking ticket, which I shall refer to as ticket A, because Miss Y used her right of appeal to the London Tribunals.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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)
7. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of the investigation, I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant’s representative.
• Documents provided by the Council.
• The Council’s Parking Policy and Procedures.
• Traffic Management Act 2004 Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy and Enforcement (March 2015).
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

10. If a car parks in breach of parking rules, a penalty charge notice (PCN) may follow.
11. An informal challenge against the PCN can be made within 28 days of its issue. If the challenge is successful there is nothing to pay. The Council will issue a notice to owner (NTO) form if it rejects the appeal and the vehicle owner does not pay the fine.
12. A formal appeal (also called representations) must be made within 28 days of receiving the NTO form. If the Council accepts the formal appeal it will cancel the PCN.
13. If the Council rejects the appeal, the fine remains due, or the owner must appeal to an independent adjudicator. In London, a motorist must appeal to the London Tribunals.
14. The Council may remove a motorist’s vehicle and tow it to an impound, if the vehicle is parked dangerously, contravening parking controls, or causing a serious obstruction.
15. To get a vehicle back from the impound, a motorist must pay £200 plus the amount shown on the PCN. A storage charge of £40 per day will be added if the vehicle is not collected within 24 hours.
16. A motorist can appeal against the removal and PCN. They must appeal within 28 days of collecting their vehicle.

What happened

17. Miss Y left the UK in a hurry on 26 February due to family illness.
18. A Council Enforcement Officer (EO) saw Miss Y’s car parked in a residents or shared use space without displaying a ticket or permit on 4 March. The EO issued Miss Y a PCN (ticket A), which was placed on her windscreen. Miss Y later appealed to the London Tribunals (the Tribunal). The Tribunal found no procedural faults and did not uphold Miss Y’s appeal. As the Tribunal has already considered how the Council issued ticket A I have not investigated it.

Ticket B

19. The following day, 5 March, an EO saw Miss Y’s car was still parked in a residents or shared use space without displaying a ticket or permit. The EO issued Miss Y a second PCN (ticket B). The EO also arranged for Miss Y’s car to be removed to the Council’s impound.
20. Miss Y’s neighbour noticed her car was missing and phoned to tell her. Miss Y asked Mr X to find out what happened. Mr X found the Council had removed Miss Y’s car. He paid £305 to release the car on 8 March. This was made up of a £200 removal fee, a £40 storage fee, and £65 to pay for ticket B.
21. Mr X wrote to the Council on 10 March. He said Miss Y was out of the country until 23 March attending her mother’s funeral and the deadline for an appeal would expire before she returns. He said staff at the impound found Miss Y’s parking permit in her car and it must have fallen. He asked for advice on how the Council could deal with an appeal from Miss Y.
22. The Council replied on 10 April. It treated Mr X’s letter as an appeal and rejected it. The Council sympathised with Miss Y’s situation but said no valid permit or ticket was seen by the EO, so the PCN was valid. It said Miss Y should have left her car keys with someone while she was away. The Council gave details of how to appeal to the Tribunal.
23. Miss Y wrote to the Council on 16 April. She said when she left the country on 26 February her permit was in place, with Sellotape to secure it, and it must have fallen.
24. The Council replied on 2 May. It said it rejected Mr X’s representations on 10 April and could not deal with any further correspondence as Miss Y paid the PCN and it had closed the case. It told Miss Y to follow the instructions on the rejection letter if she still wanted to appeal.

Ticket C

25. On 26 March 2019, an EO saw Miss Y’s car parked on a single yellow line in a restricted street during prescribed hours. The EO issued Miss Y a PCN (ticket C).
26. Miss Y appealed to the Council on 1 April. She said her car was displaying the correct permit on the windscreen at the time.
27. The Council rejected Miss Y’s appeal on 16 May. It said the EO issued a PCN for parking on a single yellow line at a time Miss Y was not allowed to park there. The Council told Miss Y she could make a formal appeal when she received the Notice to Owner (NTO) form, and she also had a right of appeal to the Tribunal.
28. The Council send a NTO form to Miss Y on 19 June. It gave her the choice to pay the PCN or make a formal appeal.
29. Miss Y made a formal appeal to the Council on 26 June. She said she was unaware there were added restrictions as well as the road being a permit holders’ area. She attached a letter from Mr X which said the Council’s photographs show no yellow line under Miss Y’s car or between her wheels. Mr X said Miss Y’s car was parked in the same place for two weeks and had not received a ticket previously.
30. The Council rejected Miss Y’s appeal on 7 August 2019. It said yellow lines were clearly in place on the road where Miss Y’s car was parked. It told Miss Y she had the choice to pay the PCN or appeal to the Tribunal. Miss Y paid the PCN on 12 August.

Response to my enquiries

31. The Council maintains it made no errors and issued all three PCNs to Miss Y correctly. It received payments for all three.
32. It gave Miss Y information on how to challenge all three PCNs. She appealed ticket A to the Tribunal, who refused her appeal on 4 July 2019.
33. The Council rejected Mr X and Miss Y’s representations about tickets B and C. It has no record Miss appealed to the Tribunal about those tickets.

Back to top

Analysis

34. The Council’s EO issued ticket B and arranged removal of Miss Y’s after seeing it parked without displaying a ticket or permit, and therefore breaking parking rules, for the second day in a row.
35. When Mr X paid to release Miss Y’s car from the impound he found her parking permit on the floor and not displayed in the windscreen. This supports the EO’s decision to issue a PCN.
36. Mr X wrote to the Council stating Miss Y had a valid permit, was out of the country, and would want to appeal. While Mr X is unhappy the Council chose to take his letter as an appeal, rather than a request for advice, the grounds of appeal Miss Y would have raised are the same. The Council recognised Miss Y had a permit but because she did not clearly display it, said the EO was correct to issue a PCN. Mr X may consider that decision was harsh, but it was not fault.
37. I have seen the photographs the Council’s EO took for ticket C. While the front of Miss Y’s car was not parked on a yellow line, her driver’s side rear wheel was. Because part of Miss Y’s car was parked on a single yellow line in a restricted area, it was up to the EO to decide whether to issue a PCN. That was the EO’s judgement and was not fault. The Council considered Miss Y’s appeal but did not overturn the PCN as it said the EO was correct to issue it. I do not consider there is evidence for me to say the PCN should not have been issued or that the Council should have allowed Miss Y’s appeal.
38. The Council made Miss Y aware of her right to appeal to the Tribunal when it rejected her appeals for tickets B and C. Miss Y was clearly aware of that right, because she did appeal to the Tribunal about ticket A. It was not unreasonable to expect Miss Y to appeal to the Tribunal again about tickets B and C.
39. I appreciate Mr X feels the Council’s decision to reject his and Miss Y’s representations was unfair, due to Miss Y’s personal circumstances and the fact she had a valid parking permit. However, it is not my role to assess the fairness of the Council’s decision or to tell the Council what grounds of appeal it should accept. My role is to investigate whether the Council followed the correct procedures. I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in the way the Council issued parking tickets to Miss Y or considered her appeals.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

41. Mr X considers ticket A should be void because staff at the impound told him all fees had been paid when they released Miss Y’s car. As above, I have not investigated ticket A because Miss Y used her right of appeal and the Tribunal considered whether the Council followed the correct procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman