Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking penalties because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not add to that already carried out or change the outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained a Council staff member has harassed him by repeatedly issuing Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) to his vehicle for alleged parking contraventions.
2. Mr Y is seeking an in-depth investigation into the actions of the staff member and for three remaining PCNs to be cancelled.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
7. While Mr Y may disagree with the outcome of the Council’s decision, as the Council has considered relevant evidence before arriving at its decision, we cannot say that there is fault in its decision-making process. Consequently, as we are not an appeals body and there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process, we would not find fault in the decision itself, and we would not seek to change the decision made.
8. Further, the Council has responded to Mr Y’s complaint, having discussed the issue raised with the staff member’s manager and considered the written records, such as notes taken at the time the PCNs were issued. The details contained in the response indicate that this investigation considered the explanation given both in the records and by Mr Y. As this is the same evidence we would consider, it is unlikely that further investigation would either add to that previously undertaken by the Council or lead to a different outcome. We will therefore not investigate.
9. Mr Y has also told us that he would like an in-depth investigation carried out into the staff member. This is not a service the Ombudsman can provide. We investigate bodies, such as Councils, within our jurisdiction as a whole and not individual staff members. We cannot achieve this outcome, so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not add to that already carried out or change the outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman