Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) as Ms X could have appealed against it to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. We will not investigate the associated complaint about officer conduct as there is insufficient, separable injustice caused to Ms X from this and it is unlikely we could achieve any meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) issued to her and the conduct of the civil enforcement officer (CEO) that issued it. Ms X says she and her family member were caused distress. Ms X seeks a refund of the £35 she paid to clear the PCN.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
3. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complains the Council’s CEO gave her five minutes to move her campervan after he told her she could not park where she had. Ms X says she panicked and was in the process of trying to move the vehicle when the CEO attached a PCN to it. Ms X paid the PCN but continued to challenge it, and the officer’s conduct with the Council, seeking a refund.
7. I recognise Ms X remains unhappy about the PCN but she had the right to challenge it via the statutory appeal process that was available to her, ultimately to an independent tribunal, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT). It is reasonable to expect her to have followed this process; we are not another level of appeal and cannot make the decisions of the TPT.
8. We will not investigate the officer conduct as a separate matter as while I recognise Ms X says she was caused distress, this does not represent a level of injustice that would justify our further involvement, in the public interest. We have limited resources and must direct them to the more serious cases. The substantive injustice to Ms X was the PCN and as explained, this could have been remedied by way of appeal.
9. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to have appealed against the PCN, ultimately to the TPT. We will not investigate the officer conduct as a separate matter as any injustice arising from this is not sufficient to justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman