Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained about the Council unfair issuing a parking penalty (PCN), when he says there was not enough signage in the area for him to know about parking restrictions. Mr Y also complained about poor handling of his complaint, where he says he was unable to speak to anyone at the Council. Mr Y has also complained that a subject access request was not responded to by the Council.
2. Mr Y says this meant he had to pay the penalty in full using a credit card, where he had wanted to pay in instalments, increasing the overall cost to him. He also said he spent a significant amount of time trying to contact the Council through various methods, causing him frustration and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
6. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council issued the PCN to Mr Y in early April 2025. Mr Y says there was not enough signage in the area for him to be made aware of the restrictions when he parked and he is not local to the area. He made representations against the PCN and complained to the Council about the PCN in April. Mr Y says he repeatedly tried to contact the Council about his representations and complaint but was unable to speak to anyone.
9. As part of its complaint response, the Council confirmed it responded to Mr Y’s representations, to reject them in May 2025. Mr Y has confirmed he received the response. He then paid the penalty one week after the Council issued the rejection of his representations. Mr Y says it was only after this stage that he received a response to his contacts, rejecting his complaint. Mr Y then approached us.
10. Mr Y disputed the enforcement of the PCN the Council issued. He has now paid the penalty, despite his disagreement with it, instead of using his right to appeal it to the London Tribunals. If Mr Y felt that the signage was inadequate to meet the requirements, it is for him as the driver and recipient of the PCN to challenge this.
11. In deciding not to appeal and paying the penalty, Mr Y has legally accepted his liability for the penalty and the validity of the PCN itself. As he has accepted its validity, it is unlikely we would now find fault in the Council’s enforcement of the PCN. We will not investigate.
12. Mr Y has also complained about the Council’s lack of response to a subject access request. The ICO is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation. This includes where information has not been disclosed on request.
13. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use. Where someone has a complaint about data protection, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO unless it is unreasonable to expect a person to do so. This is because the ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints.
14. As Mr Y has provided no reason why he is unable to, we would consider it reasonable that he should approach the ICO about his concerns. We will not investigate.
15. Mr Y has complained about the customer service he received while he was pursuing a response to his complaint. As we are not investigating the substantive issue of the PCN itself, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman