Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices issued by the Council. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council issued the Penalty Charge Notices to someone else who is the registered keeper. That person is legally liable for the notices, and is the only person who can appeal them. We will not consider the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly issued him multiple Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) over several years and did not respond to his appeals. Mr X says he has tried to appeal to the independent adjudicator but the Council refused to send him the necessary forms. He says it is targeting his family based on their race, and says an enforcement officer made a racist remark about the family to contractors who were working at his house. He says the matter has caused significant distress to the family and they have spent a significant amount paying the PCNs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We would normally be unable to consider a complaint about PCNs as they bring with them a statutory right of appeal to a parking adjudicator. However, in this case, Mr X is not the person named on the PCNs as he is not the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The registered keeper is the person with authority to appeal to the Council and then London Tribunals.
7. Mr X uses the vehicle, and says numerous PCNs have been issued when he has parked in a location where the signage is poor. He has made attempts to challenge the PCNs over several years, however he says the Council has been unresponsive. He has provided evidence he told the Council the registered keeper is not the person who drives the vehicle, and asked it to send any correspondence to him.
8. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council having issued the PCNs and subsequent correspondence to the registered keeper, rather than Mr X. This is because it is the registered keeper who is legally liable for PCNs issued by the Council for parking contraventions on public land. It is open to the registered keeper of the vehicle to challenge the PCNs. It is also open to them to consider registering Mr X as the registered keeper of their car, should Mr X be the person who drives it and they wish Mr X to take responsibility for appealing PCNs for their vehicle. Changing the registered keeper should not transfer ownership, although the owner of the vehicle should take advice on this. This would be a matter for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, and the Council does not have control over who is the registered keeper.
9. 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. While good practice may have been for the Council to explain the above to Mr X at an earlier date, I do not propose that we should investigate the Council’s complaint-handling alone. This is because the PCNs were ultimately the responsibility of the registered keeper, and so there is insufficient evidence of fault in the substantive part of the complaint.
10. We could not come to any conclusions on Mr X’s concern the PCNs were issued with a racist motive. This is because we could not say the PCNs were wrongly issued. Only London Tribunals could make that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the substantive part of the complaint, and we will not investigate complaints about complaint procedures in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman