Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking problems and penalty charge notices. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, the complainant could have used her appeal rights, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant would like.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains she has received Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) for parking outside her house. She says the Council should review the parking restrictions or provide extra parking.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and an update from the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X lives in a street where there are parking restrictions from 8am to 7pm. She says she needs to park outside her home and, due to the restrictions, has received many PCNs.
7. In May 2024 Ms X owed £3561 for PCNs. The Council offered to reduce the fines to £1255 if Ms X maintained a monthly payment plan. Ms X accepted the offer but only made one payment.
8. The Council offered further plans in November and December. In the meantime, Ms X continued to incur more PCNs and the Council passed three of the PCNs to bailiffs. The Council explained that as Ms X lives in a street with restricted access, the yellow lines are needed to ensure safety and manage traffic flow. The Council said it cannot remove the parking restrictions and Ms X needs to adhere to them.
9. In March the Council made another offer; it said it would place the bailiff action on hold, and reduce the fines from £4727 to £1710, if Ms X pays £142 a month for 12 months. The Council said it will resume recovery action if Ms X does not maintain the plan.
10. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons. If Ms X did not think the Council had issued the PCNs in accordance with the rules, she could have appealed to the tribunal. It is reasonable to expect her to appeal because the tribunal is the correct body to decide if a council issued a PCN correctly.
11. I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I appreciate Ms X finds the lack of parking difficult to manage but, as there are parking restrictions, there is no reason for the Council not to issue a PCN when someone parks in breach of the regulations. In addition, while not required to do so, the Council offered to significantly reduce the amount Ms X needs to pay and has made this offer on more than one occasion.
12. Ms X wants the Council to remove the parking restrictions or provide more parking. This, however, would be for the Council to assess and decide and is not something we could ask the Council to do. Ms X could contact her local councillors to make suggestions for the Council to consider.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because Ms X could have used her appeal rights, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because we could not achieve the outcome Ms X would like.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman