Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s enforcement of parking restrictions. The Council issued Mr X a penalty charge notice and if Mr X disputed this it would have been reasonable for him to appeal. The fact the Council did not issue his neighbour a penalty charge notice is not a significant injustice to Mr X and does not prove it unfairly targeted him.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council issued him a penalty charge notice (PCN) but did not issue one to his neighbour, who committed the same contravention. He believes the Council targeted him.

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 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued Mr X a PCN for overstaying the maximum time in an on-street parking bay in November 2023.
8. Mr X admits he parked in a parking bay which allowed a maximum 20-minute stay, but he was there for at least 33 minutes. The Council was therefore entitled to issue him a PCN.
9. Mr X’s complaint comes down to the fact the Council issued him a PCN but did not issue a PCN to his neighbour, whom he says was parked in an adjacent bay for the same period of time. He therefore believes the Council targeted him specifically.
10. But Mr X’s injustice stems from the PCN the Council issued him; not the fact it did not issue a PCN to his neighbour. If Mr X disputed the PCN he received it would have been reasonable for him to appeal. It is not a significant injustice to Mr X that the Council’s civil enforcement officer (CEO) did not issue his neighbour a PCN, regardless of whether they committed the same contravention, and we would not recommend the Council cancels the PCN it issued him simply because it did not issue a PCN to someone else.
11. I note Mr X has provided video from a CCTV camera which he believes proves the Council’s CEO targeted him but I cannot draw this assumption from the footage provided. The video shows the CEO taking steps to issue a PCN to a vehicle which exceeded the maximum parking time allowed. It does not show intent to target him specifically and the Council has confirmed from its records that the CEO issued PCNs to at least three other vehicles parked on the same road that morning.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X’s injustice stems from the PCN he received and if he disputed this it would have been reasonable for him to appeal. The fact the CEO did not issue Mr X’s neighbour a PCN as well is not a significant injustice to Mr X and does not show fault in the parking enforcement process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman