Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of a traffic warden because we could not add to the Council’s investigation and there is nothing worthwhile we could achieve.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the conduct of a traffic warden, who issued a parking ticket. He said they made false accusations and threatened to call the police, causing avoidable embarrassment. He also said they did not issue tickets to others parked on the road at the time.

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. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
4. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained about the conduct of a traffic warden who issued a parking ticket. He said they falsely accused him of having a fake blue badge and displaying a badge that was not his own. He said they were intimidating, unprofessional and threatened to call the police. He also complained they did not issue a ticket to any others parked on the road at the same time.
8. In its complaint responses, the Council confirmed it had spoken to the traffic warden, who denied being rude and said Mr X harassed them. As a result, they sought support from their line manager, who advised them to leave the location. The Council said a parking ticket was issued because the vehicle was parked on the pavement and the blue badge did not correctly show the time Mr X parked.
9. We will not investigate the decision to issue a parking ticket as Mr X has a right of appeal, which it is reasonable for him to exercise. And he is doing so.
10. The Council has investigated the complaint about the conduct of the traffic warden and not found any misconduct by the traffic warden. There is nothing further we could add to the Council’s investigation. In any case, we could not recommend disciplinary action as that is a matter for the Council as an employer and outside our remit. Therefore, we will not investigate further because there is no worthwhile outcome we could achieve by doing so.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman