Summary: We will not investigate how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint about loading restrictions as he is not caused a significant injustice from this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is continuing to enforce loading restrictions at a location where he feels such restrictions should no longer be in place. The Council issued Mr X with a penalty charge notice (PCN) for parking at the location and Mr X is also unhappy about how the Council dealt with his representations against this.

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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered information provided by the complainant.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X is unhappy that the Council, in its response to his representations against the PCN, did not discuss the merits of his case, that the loading restrictions should no longer be enforced.
6. The Council considered Mr X’s representations and stated that the reasons he gave for parking at the location did not warrant the cancellation of the PCN as the loading restrictions were still enforceable. That the Council did not provide counter arguments as to why the loading restrictions should not be cancelled, is not evidence of Council fault.
7. After the Council rejected Mr X’s representations, he then had the right to formally appeal against the PCN, ultimately to an independent parking adjudicator at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT), who would have considered his case. Mr X chose not to do this and decided to pay the fine.
8. Mr X then complained to the Council about the loading restrictions and is unhappy with the response the Council has provided. We will not investigate, as Mr X is not caused a significant injustice from this as a stand-alone matter. The injustice to Mr X arose from the PCN and the way to address that was by way of an appeal to the TPT.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s representations against a PCN and Mr X is not caused a significant injustice from the Council’s response to his subsequent complaint about the loading restrictions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman