Summary: We will not investigate Dr X’s complaint about reasonable adjustments in relation to enforcing Penalty Charge Notices. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigating further and it would have been reasonable for the complainant to use her appeal and court rights to address the penalties themselves.

The complaint

1. Dr X complains the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments in relation to Penalty Charge Notices (PCN). She would like the Council to waive the PCNs and release her vehicle and belongings without charge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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 or a remedy through the courts. 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) and (c), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is part of the county court which considers enforcement of PCNs and any challenge to enforcement action.
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the Dr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council issued Dr X several PCNs which she did not pay. It took enforcement action and impounded her vehicle. Dr X says the Council failed to consider or make reasonable adjustments for her disability under the Equality Act 2010.
9. Dr X requested the Council communicate via email. She says she was struggling financially due to her disability and caring commitments and asked the Council to consider her circumstances.
10. The information we have seen shows Council considered each PCN individually. It offered financial support and applied reduced rates to the PCNs. The Council’s enforcement agents also agreed payment arrangements with Dr X. The Council also offered to reduce the debt for the PCN that led to the vehicle being impounded to £360. I am satisfied the Council properly considered and largely made reasonable adjustments for Dr X.
11. Dr X also asked the Council to send her personal belongings by secure mail after the vehicle was impounded. The Council refused. It was reasonable for the Council to expect Dr X to arrange to collect her belongings from the place the car is held. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant further investigation.
12. Dr X wants the Council to waive all the PCNs and release her car. It would have been reasonable for her to have challenged the PCNs by making formal representations to the Council and then appealing to the London Tribunals if necessary. Once the Council had issued a charge certificate and proceeded to recover the unpaid charges it would also have been reasonable for Dr X to apply to the TEC to halt the process.
13. On balance it is unlikely an enforcing authority, court or tribunal would consider it reasonable for a disabled driver to expect because of their disability not to follow road traffic law, nor to receive a PCN for any infringement, nor to face enforcement action for failing to pay a PCN. We could not therefore say the Council’s approach to Dr X is flawed. If she wishes to claim discrimination by the Council it would be reasonable for her to make a claim in court.

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Dr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman