Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for parking in a pay and display car park without a ticket because he did not see the signage, which Mr Y says was not sufficiently lit. He also complained that the Council has said it will no longer correspond with him after it said his complaint had become vexatious in its complaint response.
2. Mr Y has paid £25 for the PCN and feels this is unfair and is shocked the Council has now refused to communicate with him further.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or 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 Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y disputes the validity of the PCN the Council has issued. He has now paid the penalty, despite his disagreement with it, instead of using his right to appeal it to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. If Mr Y has felt that the signage was inadequately lit and did not meet the requirements, it is for him as the driver and recipient of the PCN to challenge this.
7. In deciding not to appeal and paying the penalty, Mr Y has legally accepted his liability for the penalty and the validity of the PCN itself. As he has accepted its validity, it is unlikely we would now find fault in the Council’s issuing of the PCN. We will not investigate.
8. Also, 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. 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.
9. While Mr Y may feel very strongly about the incident and the payment, we would not consider this a significant harm or loss which would warrant the use of public funds to investigate. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
10. As we are not investigating the substantive matter, it is also not a good use of public funds to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint, including to stop corresponding about his complaint, so we will not investigate this.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman