Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about difficulties he faced when he tried to challenge a parking charge notice. He says the Council put up barriers and failed to make reasonable adjustments. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or worthwhile outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about difficulties he faced when he tried to challenge a parking charge notice. He says the Council put up barriers and failed to make reasonable adjustments to enable him to engage effectively. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint as the Council refused to take his complaint verbally.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X received a penalty charge notice from the Council. The Council has an agreement without another council, Council 2, for them to manage their parking enforcement.
6. Mr X complained about how Council 2 dealt with him when he contacted to challenge the penalty charge notice. He also complained a member of staff refused to accept a verbal complaint when he tried to complain about the matter.
7. In its complaint response, the Council noted:
• Staff had tried to help Mr X with his challenge to the penalty charge notice and this is evidenced by the fact the penalty charge was cancelled, despite it having been issued correctly.
• Staff had not relayed all necessary information regarding Mr X needing staff to speak slowly when leaving telephone messages.
• Feedback and discussions have been held with relevant staff involved to highlight importance of ensure all necessary information is recorded.
• It had requested the recordings of all phone calls, and these would be provided to Mr X.
8. An investigation is not proportionate as an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. The Council has acknowledged some of the faults with the handling of the case, including the failure to adequately record Mr X’s requested reasonable adjustments, and apologised for this. This was appropriate and an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes.
9. Further, the penalty charge notice has been cancelled. This suggests that despite some of the difficulties Mr X faced in raising his challenge, he nevertheless was able to successfully challenge the notice. Therefore, an investigation could not achieve anything further.
10. Finally, it is acknowledged Mr X likely faced some difficulty at the start in submitting the complaint verbally. However, Mr X was eventually able to submit his complaint, and his complaint has been appropriately considered by the Council under its complaint procedure. Therefore, an investigation is not proportionate as there are no further worthwhile outcomes achievable.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or worthwhile outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman