Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s rejection of his representations against a penalty charge notice. This is because the Council has cancelled the PCN and apologised to Mr X and this provides a suitable remedy for the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council gave him inaccurate information in response to his representations against a penalty charge notice (PCN). He suggests this stopped him from being able to park to take a family member to hospital, meaning he had to ask other people for lifts and pay for taxis.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), 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. The Council issued Mr X a PCN because he parked in a ‘pay by phone’ bay without paying for parking or displaying a valid blue badge. The Council rejected Mr X’s informal challenge to the PCN on these grounds and Mr X then submitted formal representations when he received the ‘notice to owner’. The Council rejected Mr X’s formal representations but gave different reasons for in its notice of rejection; it said Mr X had displayed a blue badge but that blue badges are not valid for use in ‘pay by phone’ bays in the borough.
5. The Council accepts the reason given for rejecting Mr X’s formal representations was wrong. It has apologised to Mr X and cancelled the PCN by way of a remedy for its failures, however Mr X believes the Council should pay him compensation.
6. Mr X says he has to visit hospital three times per week but there is no suggestion he received any PCNs other than the one he refers to in his complaint. This is despite the fact there was a significant amount of time between receiving the initial PCN, following the initial stages of the appeals process and receiving the Council’s notice of rejection. During this period Mr X would have been aware the Council issued the PCN because he did not display a blue badge and he did not receive any PCNs claiming the blue badge was not valid for parking in these bays. Mr X also had the option of paying to park in any ‘pay by phone’ bays if he believed the Council’s reasons for refusing his representations but again there is no suggestion he did.
7. I am therefore satisfied the Council’s actions provide a suitable remedy for Mr X’s complaint and that further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more for him.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has provided a suitable remedy for the issue and it is unlikely we would recommend anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman