Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a civil enforcement officer gave incorrect advice as it is unlikely we will find fault causing an injustice to the complainant and we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains a Council civil enforcement officer (CEO) gave him wrong advice about how long he could park whilst he was loading. Mr X says that as a result, he left and had to return later in the evening to collect the items. Mr X is a sole trader and says his costs arising from this amount to £130. Mr X wants the Council to reimburse him.

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 or fault causing an injustice to the person who complained, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (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 attended a property to unload some equipment from it, into his van. Mr X says he had been parked there less than ten minutes when a CEO told him he had two minutes to move his vehicle, or he would be issued with a penalty charge notice (PCN). Mr X says as a result he left and returned later to collect the items. Mr X says this cost him £130. Mr X says he checked afterwards and believes that he was entitled to park for twenty minutes at the location, whilst loading.
6. While I recognise Mr X feels he was wrongly advised, we will not investigate as it is unlikely we could determine what took place, even on balance, without any corroborating evidence to support Mr X’s case. Additionally, it was essentially Mr X’s choice to proceed as he did, that is, to leave and return later and so it is unlikely we could say, in any case, that the costs Mr X incurred arose directly from the alleged Council fault.
7. Finally, it was incumbent upon Mr X to familiarise himself with the parking restrictions in place before parking at the location. Had Mr X then been wrongly issued with a PCN, he could have challenged it via the statutory appeal process.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we will find fault causing the claimed injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman