Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to remind Mr X that his residents permit was due to expire resulting in him being issued with a penalty charge notice. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable if we investigated.

The complaint

1. In short, Mr X complains he was unaware his parking permit had expired as the Council failed to send him the usual reminder email.
2. He says he received a penalty charge notice (pcn) and has also been caused stress and frustration.
3. As an outcome, Mr X wants an investigation, a new permit, for the Council to waive the £10.00 application fee and changes to its parking permit policy for blue badge holders.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant. I also considered the Council’s complaints responses to Mr X.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X complains about being caused stress and frustration including being issued with a pcn. He says all this arose due to the Council’s failure to send the usual renewal reminder. Mr X says the loss of parking access affected him and his relative, who is a blue badge holder, and needs to attend hospital three times a week for dialysis treatment.
10. The Council has investigated and accepts there was a system failure to send the usual automatic renewals. It says it is still investigating the root cause of the system error. While it has apologised to Mr X, it highlights the terms and conditions permit holders are required to sign which places overall responsibility for renewing permits in time with the permit holder ‘even if you do not receive a reminder notice’. It says reminder notices can still end up in spam or junk folders therefore the onus is on the permit holder to renew in time rather than rely on the Council’s reminders.
11. It goes on to explain it cannot accede to Mr X’s preferred outcomes. It will not waive the charge or the procedure for re-application as this goes against the policy set by the Council Cabinet. And it says its policy is applied fairly and consistently.
12. We will not investigate. It is unlikely we could achieve anything more given Mr X signed to accept primary responsibility to renew his permit on time. I have seen no information to indicate there is any obligation on the Council to send reminder notices. The Council has apologised and says it is pursuing the lack of auto-renewal reminders with its systems supplier. This is appropriate remedial action in the facts of this complaint.
13. Finally, we will not consider the merits of the PCN being issued. Mr X has already used his right to appeal against the issuing of the pcn, and it is reasonable to expect that his ultimate remedy would be via London Tribunals, if the Council denies his appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we could achieve anything more for Mr X by investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman