Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the operation of a parking payment machine and the information provided by the Council. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the way a parking machine operates and the information provided by the Council about the use of the machine. Mr X wants the Council to amend the policy and issue a refund.

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 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 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))
3. 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)
4. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence, photographs and Freedom of Information (FOI) request and the reply. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X parked in a car park. Parking was free but the driver was required to enter their car registration into the parking machine and place the printed ticket on the windscreen. The printed ticket should display the car registration.
8. The Council issued Mr X with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) because he had parked without displaying a valid ticket; this was because the first two letters of his car registration had not been printed on the ticket. Mr X made an informal challenge against the PCN which the Council rejected. The Council said Mr X could pay £25 or use the statutory process and appeal to the tribunal. Mr X paid £25.
9. Mr X complained. Although he has made many points his key issue is that there is no information to say what should be printed on the ticket and nothing to say what someone should do if the ticket is incomplete. Mr X says the incomplete ticket was caused by a printing error whereas the Council says he did not press the buttons correctly on the machine.
10. In response to his complaint the Council said the machine asks people to enter the full licence and there is a phone number on the sign which people can call if there are problems. The Council said the incomplete ticket is one of the scenarios when someone could call. It said it is the responsibility of the driver to check the ticket and call if there is a problem.
11. Mr X made a FOI request and has asked for a review because he is dissatisfied with the response. I will not investigate this issue because the ICO considers FOI disputes.
12. I will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal. The tribunal could have considered Mr X’s views about the signage and operation of the machine; if the adjudicator thought there was a flaw in the system they could have included this in the tribunal decision and, if appropriate, cancelled the PCN.
13. I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It would be impossible for us to find out why the ticket was incomplete (user error or machine error) but as the instructions ask for the full licence then it is reasonable to assume that a driver will regard an incomplete ticket as a problem and call the number provided. The sign does not say the full licence must be printed or specify what someone should do if the printing is incomplete, but a sign cannot cover every eventuality; the information provided is sufficient and does not amount to fault. And, as I have said, Mr X could have used his appeal rights.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman