Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed against it to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. We will not investigate the Council’s use of enforcement agents to recover the penalty charge notice as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongfully issued him with a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) when he had parked to charge his car at a charging bay. Mr X complains there were no signs at the location to indicate a parking charge also applied. Mr X says he disputed the matter on several occasions but despite this the Council passed the PCN to its enforcement agents. Mr X says this has caused him stress and wasted his time.

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. 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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
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 complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Parliament has provided an appeal process for motorists to challenge PCNs, ultimately to independent parking adjudicators at, in this case, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT). I note that Mr X says he challenged the PCN with the Council, but once it had formerly rejected his challenges, Mr X had the right to appeal to the TPT. We are not an alternative appeal body in this process and are not empowered to make the decisions the TPT can. It is reasonable therefore to expect Mr X to have used the appeal procedure provided in law and as such, we will not investigate, as per paragraph three.
9. I recognise that Mr X is unhappy about the Council's use of enforcement agents to recover the PCN. However, if a PCN remains unpaid, the legal process of enforcement and recovery leads to this action. Mr X’s complaint does not indicate fault by the Council in this regard but had there been procedural fault, Mr X is likely to have had the right to have asked the court at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) to consider his case. This is the procedure provided in law to challenge enforcement escalation of PCNs and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have used it, if it was applicable to his case.
10. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have appealed against the PCN to the TPT and there is insufficient evidence of fault in respect of the Council's use of enforcement agents. Mr X may also have had the right to seek a remedy in court regarding this aspect of his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman