Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complained the Council has kept a £7 charge for parking, despite her having received and paid a Penalty Charge Notice for £65 for the same parking session in its area. She is also unhappy with how the Council dealt with her complaint.
2. Ms Y says this has cost her £7 more than if she had paid nothing to park and received the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and has caused her inconvenience in bringing her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Ms Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms Y says her injustice is the £7 she paid to park prior to receiving and paying the PCN for £65. She says this is double charging by the Council. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation.
7. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
8. While Ms Y may feel strongly about the principle of the issue, we would not consider there to be a serious loss, harm or distress caused in this instance, which would justify our use of public resources to investigate. Consequently, we will not investigate.
9. As we are not investigating the substantive matter, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Ms Y’s complaint, so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman