London Borough of Haringey (24 019 845)
Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 01 Apr 2025
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.
The complaint
- The complainant, Mr X, complains about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Mr X says the Council should cancel the PCN because he was displaying a blue badge.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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, or
- any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes correspondence about the PCN. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mr X was driving his partner’s car and parked. He says he displayed his blue badge. The Council issued a PCN because it decided the badge was not valid and/or had been altered.
- Mr X challenged the PCN and stressed he had displayed his badge. The Council rejected the challenge because it remained of the opinion that the badge was invalid. The Council told Mr X it would send the Notice to Owner (NTO) to the registered keeper of the car because it is the keeper, not the driver, who is responsible for responding to PCNs. Mr X is not the registered keeper.
- The Council sent the NTO to the keeper and explained she could pay or appeal.
- Mr X says the case is now with bailiffs.
- I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice to Mr X. Mr X made an initial challenge which the Council responded to. However, from that point, Mr X had no role because he is not the registered keeper. The Council correctly told Mr X, and the owner, that it was the responsibility of the owner to pay or appeal.
- In addition, there is no impact on Mr X because the PCN is not his responsibility and he is not liable for the fine or any bailiff fees.
Final decision
- We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman