Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council issued him several penalty charge notices as a result of issues with its parking permit application system. This is because Mr X was not liable for the penalty charges and we could not therefore say the Council’s actions caused him significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about several penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by the Council. He believes the Council was to blame for the PCNs as he says he was unable to apply for the permit using his address. His vehicle belongs to a lease company and they have charged £520 to cover the cost of the PCNs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X is not the owner of the vehicle and therefore has no direct injustice from the issue of the PCNs. His injustice stems from the charges made to his employer by the lease company, and the employer’s deductions from his pay. This took place under the agreement between Mr X, his employer and the lease company; Mr X was not directly liable for the PCNs and the Council received no money from him.
5. Had Mr X wished to take on responsibility for the PCNs and appeal against them he could have asked the lease company to transfer liability to him. He would then have been able to make representations against the PCNs and appeal to London Tribunals. But as he did not do this the lease company remained liable and it paid the PCNs at the discounted rate.
6. Because Mr X was not liable for the PCNs we cannot say their issue caused him significant injustice.
7. We also could not say that any issues with the permit application system wrongly resulted in the issue of the PCNs. This is because the PCNs were issued when Mr X parked on single yellow lines and in resident’s parking spaces without a valid permit, not because of the fact Mr X’s address did not show in the system.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman