Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to pay compensation after it cancelled a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains there was no good reason for an enforcement officer to issue a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Mr X says the officer could have explained the issue and given Mr X time to move his car. Mr X wants £482 to reflect the impact on his well-being.

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. (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 Mr X. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Highway Code says people must not park on a crossing or in the area covered by zig-zag lines.
5. Mr X parked on zig-zag lines near a crossing. He approached the officer who was issuing a PCN and said he thought there were no restrictions on a Sunday. Mr X says the officer continued to issue the PCN. Mr X says the officer could have explained the rules and given Mr X time to move his car.
6. Mr X appealed to the Council. The Council accepted the lines were covered by leaves so the restriction may not have been clear. The Council cancelled the PCN.
7. Mr X complained to the Council about the officer and asked for compensation of £482. In response, the Council explained the Highway Code and said there were zig-zag lines on both sides of the road and in the middle of the road. It said the restriction applies all the time and is designed to protect road safety. The Council declined to pay compensation because, in the officer’s opinion at the time, Mr X had parked illegally and in contravention of the Highway Code.
8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council cancelled Mr X’s PCN because it accepted he was not aware of the zig-zag lines due to the leaves. However, the officer thought the lines were visible and he would have been aware that the restriction was also indicated by the lines on the other side of the road and in the middle of the road. We could not say that the officer erred in thinking Mr X had parked in breach of the rules and the PCN rules do not say councils should pay compensation when someone makes a successful appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman