Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because any fault has not caused significant injustice to the person who complained. We are satisfied with the actions the Council took in response to the complaint and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council issued a penalty charge notice (PCN) within the ten-minute grace period and gave him wrong information about its policies when he challenged the PCN. He says the Council’s actions have caused him stress and frustration. He wants the Council to compensate him, acknowledge its errors and review its staff training materials.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• 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))

3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. When a Council issues a PCN it must issue it to the registered keeper of the vehicle.
7. The evidence I have seen shows Mr X is not the registered keeper. He is therefore not directly or significantly affected by the issue of the PCN and has no right to make representations, appeal, or make a witness statement or statutory declaration to the traffic enforcement centre (TEC).
8. Mr X told the Council it had not complied with the Traffic Management Act 2004, as had not allowed a ten-minute grace period for permitted parking before enforcement.
9. The Council accepts it gave Mr X wrong information about the ten-minute grace period. It also wrongly referred him to appeal the PCN when he is not the registered keeper of the vehicle so had no right of appeal personally.
10. The Council cancelled the PCN and acknowledged the errors in its response to Mr X’s complaint. It also reviewed and updated its staff briefing materials, provided refresher training to its parking staff and offered £35 as a goodwill payment to Mr X to address the inconvenience caused by its errors.
11. We do not investigate all complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We can only investigate the most serious complaints.
12. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to acknowledge and address Mr X’s injustice and to prevent future failures in service. It is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome, and there is not an outstanding significant injustice that would justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any fault has not caused significant injustice to the person who complained and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to accept fault, acknowledge the impact on Mr X, and improve future service. Further involvement by the Ombudsman is not justified.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman