Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about comments allegedly made by a traffic warden. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice. It is also unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says a traffic warden made unprofessional comments and the Council has called him a liar. Mr X wants an apology.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. A traffic warden issued Mr X with a parking fine (PCN) because he parked his van in a disabled parking bay. Mr X paid the fine.
5. Mr X complained to the Council that the warden commented to another traffic warden that he had just issued two PCNs to two vans. Mr X said the warden then drove away on his moped. Mr X complained about the warden’s unprofessional comment.
6. In response the Council said the warden confirmed issuing two PCNs to two vans but denied making the comment. The Council said GPS tracking showed there was no other warden in the area at that time and the warden does not ride a moped while working. The Council said it could not substantiate Mr X’s allegation but said it had reminded staff of the expected service standards.
7. Mr X has repeated that the warden did make the comments and a second warden was present.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council responded appropriately by exploring Mr X’s allegation and by explaining why there was insufficient evidence to substantiate it. Even if we started an investigation it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.
9. I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. I appreciate Mr X feels aggrieved but the impact is not severe enough to require an investigation. The Council has not called Mr X a liar but said there is no evidence to support his allegation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice, and because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman