Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council issuing a penalty charge notice, when she had paid to park, and how it dealt with her representations. The Council has considered Ms X’s evidence and resolved the matter by cancelling the penalty charge.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has failed to cancel a penalty charge notice issued in March 2021 and has not considered the evidence she provided showing she had bought a permit. Ms X says the Council should cancel the penalty charge notice and it is causing her time and trouble.

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, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

3. 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)
4. London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered Ms X’s information and comments. The Council has provided the penalty charge notice case documents.

Back to top

What I found

6. On 20 March 2021, the Council issued Ms X with a penalty charge notice (PCN) for parking without paying/having a valid permit. On 30 March, the Council rejected Ms X’s representation against the PCN. On 7 April, the Council wrote to Ms X confirming it had cancelled the PCN. On 1 April it had received Ms X’s Ring Go receipt. The Council advised Ms X to check the vehicle number being used because there appeared to be an error in it.

Analysis

7. I will not investigate Ms X’s complaint for the following reasons:
8. The Council has considered Ms X’s evidence and cancelled the PCN which resolves the matter. There was no significant delay and the Council does not need to do more.
9. Had the Council refused to cancel the PCN Ms X could have challenged by using her right of appeal to the parking adjudicator. The Ombudsman would not normally investigate because such a complaint is outside our jurisdiction (see paragraphs 3 and 4 above).

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council issuing a penalty charge notice, when she had paid to charge, and how it dealt with her representations. The Council has considered Ms X’s evidence and resolved the matter by cancelling the penalty charge.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman