Summary: We will not investigate Ms Z’s complaint about the Council’s issuing of multiple Penalty Charge Notices and how it handled her complaint. The Council has cancelled and refunded most of the charges, so there is insufficient outstanding injustice to justify investigating these. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating Ms Z’s outstanding concerns. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures alone.

The complaint

1. Ms Z complains the Council unfairly issued her with multiple Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) and about its related complaint handling. She says this caused her financial hardship and distress. She wants the Council to cancel all charges and related costs, pay compensation, and review its parking permit and complaint procedures.

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, or
• any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms Z complained the Council issued her with several PCNs even though she correctly applied for trader permits.
6. In its first response, the Council signposted Ms Z to the statutory appeal process to challenge the PCNs.
7. Ms Z raised a stage two complaint with the Council, which it acknowledged. After ten weeks, the Council had not responded so Ms Z brought her complaint to us.
8. One month later, the Council responded to Ms Z’s complaint. It said Ms Z had not followed the correct process for trader permits. Although it acknowledged she had applied for the permits, she had not awaited confirmation the permits had been validated at the time of parking. But the Council accepted the available information on the use of the permits may not have been clear, so it partly upheld her complaint. It agreed to cancel all PCNs issued when she had applied for a trader permit and refund any payments received. It also clarified the parking permit process.
9. Following the Council’s response, Ms Z complained to us that the Council had not cancelled one of the PCNs she had received. She also complained the Council had not improved the permit process and its response was not on letter-headed paper.
10. In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed it had not cancelled one PCN as Ms Z had not applied for a trader permit on the day the PCN was issued. It said it had confirmed this to Ms Z and closed the case after receiving payment for the PCN.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has cancelled all the PCNs issued on days Ms Z applied for a trader permit. It explained why it had not cancelled the remaining PCN, which Ms Z has since paid. It also clarified the permit process to Ms Z and outlines the same information on its website. There is not enough remaining injustice, or evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify investigating.
12. We will also not investigate the Council’s complaints handling. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to investigate the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms Z’s complaint because there is not enough remaining injustice or evidence of fault to justify investigating. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures alone.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman