Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about penalty charge notices issued to her contractor. This is because we could not say the issue of the penalty charge notices caused Miss X injustice as she was not liable for them. The proper way to challenge the penalty charge notices was through the statutory appeals process and the right of appeal applied to the contractor as the registered keeper of the vehicle, not Miss X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council issued penalty charge notices (PCNs) to a contractor she had carrying out work to her property, despite her having purchased traders’ parking vouchers. Miss X says this led to her receiving threats from her contractor, following which she agreed to pay the PCNs. She says that in total she paid more than £2,000 for the parking vouchers and PCNs.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council suggests that while Miss X purchased parking vouchers for the contractor, they were not the correct vouchers to allow him to park in the housing estate in which she lives. This is unfortunate but the resulting injustice from the PCNs was to Miss X’s contractor rather than to Miss X herself. It is the contractor, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is liable for the PCNs and had the right to appeal against them. But he did not appeal against the PCNs and nor did he did pay them; this resulted in their escalation under the statutory process and significant increases in the amounts owed. The Council had no control over the contractor’s actions and it is not responsible for Miss X’s agreement to pay them at the increased amounts.
5. I am also mindful of the fact that even if the Council did now agree to cancel the PCNs, the contractor (as the person liable for the PCNs) would be entitled to any reimbursement. This would not therefore remedy the injustice Miss X claims.
6. Miss X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Miss X was not liable for the PCNs and the injustice she now claims was not the result of the Council’s actions. If the contractor disputed the PCNs we would have expected him to appeal and it was his actions which led to the increase in the amounts of the PCNs, which Miss X subsequently paid.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman