Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking enforcement. This is because Mr X has already used his right to take the matter to the London Tribunals and the law says we cannot investigate it. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to issue him with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). He has also raised concerns about the behaviour of the enforcement officer and how the Council dealt with his complaint. Mr X says he has been caused considerable stress and lost trust in the enforcement process.

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. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
6. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. A motorist can appeal a PCN. If the authority rejects the appeal, the motorist can take their case to an independent tribunal called the London Tribunals. Mr X took his case to the London Tribunals. This puts Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to issue the PCN outside our jurisdiction.
10. Mr X has complained about the behaviour of the enforcement officer and says the officer’s body worn camera was not working at the time of the incident. However, I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mr X’s concerns and the evidence he provided about the conduct of the officer. It explained why body camera footage was not available and it has taken steps to remind officers to wear cameras. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to this response or achieve anything more for Mr X.
11. Mr X complained about the way in which the Council handled his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has already used his right to take the matter to the London Tribunals. It is unlikely an investigation could add to the Council’s response in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman