Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice as it was reasonable to expect the registered keeper of the vehicle to appeal it to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council did not cancel a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) it gave her despite her explaining that her mother’s disabled parking badge she had used to park was only out of date by three days. Mrs X says this caused upset to her elderly mother. Mrs X also does not feel the complaint she subsequently made was dealt with impartially as she says it was dealt with by the same people that deal with PCN appeals. Mrs X wants the Council to cancel the PCN.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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. 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 it is unlikely we will find fault or any fault did not lead to injustice significant enough to justify our involvement (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 the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

7. Mrs X parked, with her mother, Ms A, in a disabled bay and displayed Ms A’s disabled parking badge. The Council issued a parking PCN to the car as the badge had expired. The car Mrs X was driving belonged to her husband, Mr X.
8. Mrs X made representations to the Council against the PCN explaining the badge was only three days out of date and about her mother’s health issues. The Council rejected these representations stating that it is a badge holder’s responsibility to ensure a badge is renewed and that a valid badge must be displayed. The Council advised it did not consider the circumstances Mrs X outlined were grounds to cancel the PCN.
9. Mrs X paid the PCN at this point, for fear of escalation, but continued to challenge it by way of a complaint she made to the Council. Mrs X complained the Council’s website was misleading, and that this disadvantaged her when she made representations against the PCN, about delay and about the Council’s refusal to cancel the PCN.

Back to top

My assessment

10. I recognise that Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s response to the representations she made to it about the PCN and the disabled badge etc but it is for the Council to decide whether it considers such representations warrant the cancellation of a PCN and its decision not to do this is unlikely to be fault. In addition, as described below, Mrs X, or in this case, Mr X, had the right to continue to challenge the PCN via the statutory appeal process, rather than paying it.
11. I understand that Mrs X paid the PCN for fear of escalation, but Parliament has provided an appeal process she could have followed, or in this case, her husband could have followed, as the registered keeper, to challenge the PCN, ultimately to parking adjudicators at independent tribunals, in this case, London Tribunals. This is the procedure provided by Parliament and it is reasonable to expect it to have been used. Making an appeal does incur the risk of having to pay an increased PCN if that appeal is lost, but this is the process in law, and the option of paying a PCN, and then challenging it, is not provided for.
12. I do not consider Mrs X was caused a significant injustice from any alleged fault in the Council’s handling of her complaint and so we will not investigate this as a separate matter. The injustice arose from the PCN and as advised, there is an appeal process that could have reasonably been used to seek a remedy for that.
13. I recognise that Ms A was upset by what happened, but I cannot say this is as a result of Council fault.
14. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it was best dealt with via an appeal and any ancillary matters did not cause her a level of injustice sufficient to justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman