Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a parking ticket matter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council failed to properly consider her complaint about the handling of a parking ticket (PCN). She complained the Council told her it withdrew the PCN but it then sent her a letter rejecting representations. She decided to pay but the Council then sent her a Notice to Owner. Miss X said the Council delayed responding to her complaint. This caused her anxiety and distress.

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 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 the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Miss X raised her complaints to the Council regarding the matters set out in paragraph 1.
5. In its response the Council said it had asked Miss X for evidence that it had cancelled her PCN. However, she had not supplied evidence to support this. The Council noted Miss X said she had paid the PCN but then received a Notice to Owner. The Council said it issued the Notice to Owner in November as it had not received payment. The Council had received Miss X’s payment later the same day. The Council did not uphold Miss X’s complaint.
6. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation as Miss X has not provided evidence the Council agreed to cancel her PCN. The Council issued a notice to owner as Miss X had not paid within the required time. It received her payment later in the day.
7. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the complaint responses. This is because 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

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman