Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the issue of a penalty charge notice (PCN) because it would reasonable for Mr X to appeal. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of the officers who issued the PCN because it did not cause Mr X significant injustice separate from the impact of the PCN itself. Mr X believes the Council should take disciplinary action against the officers but this is a personnel matter and it is not therefore subject to investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the conduct of two of the Council’s civil enforcement officers (CEOs), otherwise known as parking wardens. He says the CEOs acted inappropriately and were hostile towards him and his business partner. He says the Council’s response to the issue lacked specific actions or disciplinary measures it had taken against the CEOs and failed to properly address his concerns. This caused him distress and frustration and has affected him financially.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
6. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The CEOs’ actions were in relation to the issue of a penalty charge notice (PCN). Mr X disputes the PCN on the grounds he was unloading at the time but this is a matter for the appeals process. If Mr X wishes to challenge it further it would therefore be reasonable for him to appeal. We cannot separately consider or recommend a remedy for any injustice resulting from the issue of the PCN.
9. While Mr X is concerned the Council has not taken sufficient disciplinary measures against the CEOs involved this is not something we can consider further. This is because disciplinary action is a personnel issue and as such it is not subject to investigation as set out at Paragraph 6. We cannot recommend the Council takes disciplinary action against individual members of staff and Mr X has no right to know what action the Council has taken.
10. Any remaining injustice Mr X has from the actions of the Council’s CEOs is not significant enough to warrant investigation. Mr X believes the CEOs had a duty to pick up the PCN when a member of the public threw it to the ground but this is not their responsibility and the issue does not directly or significantly affect Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because any challenge to the PCN is a matter for the appeals process and the actions of the Council’s CEOs did not cause Mr X significant injustice separate to that resulting from the PCN itself.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman