Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his parking permit. This is because the injustice he claims stems from several penalty charge notices issued by the Council and it would have been reasonable for him to challenge these by appealing to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to provide clear information about the locations he could park using his parking permit and then penalised him for parking incorrectly. He says this caused him stress and financial loss.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. While Mr X complains about the Council’s lack of information about his parking permit the injustice he claims stems from the penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by the Council.
8. Mr X says he challenged the PCNs but the Council refused to cancel them. In this situation it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals. There is little dispute over whether the contraventions occurred but London Tribunals could have looked at whether the Council properly considered Mr X’s argument that his permit was unclear about where he could park. If it decided it had not, London Tribunals could have referred the matter back to the Council to consider the matter afresh.
9. I have seen nothing to show it would be unreasonable to expect Mr X to use his right of appeal and I have therefore decided not to exercise my discretion to investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman