Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alledged misconduct by the Council with respect to how it enforces parking contraventions in the complainant’s area. This is because there is insufficient evidence the complainant has personally suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a result of the alledged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr X) complains about alledged misconduct by Parking Enforcement Officers (PEOs) of the Council. He alleges PEOs pick and choose which vehicles to issue penalty charges notices for alledged parking contraventions. Mr X refers to one particular case where Council PEOs took no action in respect of a car which he alleges was illegally parked for well over one year. He says the inconsistent and biased approach to enforcement amounts to misconduct in public office.
2. In summary, Mr X says the alledged fault is defrauding taxpayers due to a failure by Council PEOs to carry out their duties and collect fines. As a desired outcome, he wants the Council to conduct a thorough investigation into the issues raised and for its PEOs to face disciplinary action.

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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Before accepting a complaint, we must be satisfied any fault is likely to have caused Mr X a significant and personal injustice. This means Mr X would likely need to have been caused serious loss, harm or distress as a result of the fault alledged. I have considered the alleged injustice claimed by Mr X relating to the enforcement of parking by Council PEOs, but do not consider the injustice claimed is beyond that which the general public would suffer generally. There is insufficient evidence that Mr X personally has a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the restrictions I outline at paragraph three (above) apply.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman