Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the enforcement process and associated communications regarding a penalty charge notice. The Council has already taken appropriate action in response to the complaint and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve much more for the complainant.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council handled the enforcement process and his associated communications regarding a penalty charge notice (PCN) he received for a moving traffic contravention. He says he spent time and money on having to contact the Council and, due to his dyslexia, the situation was particularly stressful and worrying.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, or
• we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
4. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council:

• Apologised for the delays in its complaint responses, and that the Stage 1 response missed the opportunity to address the issues being raised.
• Apologised that the online appeal function was not working when he initially attempted to challenge the PCN.
• Accepted his experience of trying to contact Parking Services fell below the standard expected and apologised that an email address was not provided in the voicemail message he was transferred to during a telephone call. It says the matter has been raised with Customer Services to ensure staff are aware of the correct process when people are seeking to contact Parking Services.
• Accepted it should have informed him of the other options that were available to challenge the PCN after he received the Charge Certificate. It is reviewing how it responds to correspondence received at this stage in the enforcement process, as it acknowledges this needs to be made clearer. Additional training and support will also be given to the officer involved.
• Acknowledged the Notice of Rejection was sent in error, after the Order for Recovery and Charge Certificate had been cancelled. The PCN had already been cancelled because of this procedural impropriety.
• Apologised for failing to respond to his request for a transcript of one of his telephone calls.
• Offered its sincere apologies for the time Mr X had spent on pursuing the matter and offered a payment of £200 in recognition of the time and cost involved.

6. The Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve much more than the PCN cancellation, apologies, service improvements, and financial remedy already identified by the Council, so we will not start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken or proposed to take, and we are unlikely to achieve much more for him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman