Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. It was reasonable for her to use her right of appeal to the tribunal. We will also not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council failed to consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice (PCN). She says she received the PCN because there are no disabled parking spaces near her local amenities. She says the Council has failed to consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010 in its handling of the PCN.
2. Ms X says the lack of disabled parking has made her anxious about going out. She wants the Council to cancel the PCN, acknowledge its duties under the Equality Act 2010, provide more disabled parking spaces in local shopping and community areas, and apologise and pay her compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals within London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Ms X.
8. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The evidence I have seen shows that Ms X successfully applied to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) after she did not receive the Council’s Notice of Rejection (NoR). The Council then reissued the NoR, which allowed Ms X to either pay the charge or appeal to an independent tribunal.
10. As paragraph 5 says, we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal to a tribunal, unless it was unreasonable to appeal. I have seen no evidence to suggest it was unreasonable for Ms X to appeal the PCN. She could use the Council’s informal review process and apply to the TEC. Therefore, I consider it was reasonable for her to use her right of appeal in the circumstances and I will not investigate this part of her complaint.

Equality Act 2010

11. The Ombudsman cannot find that a body in jurisdiction has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find a body at fault for failing to take account of their duties under the Equality Act.
12. Ms X did not ask the Council for reasonable adjustments throughout the statutory appeals process. The Council has however offered to make reasonable adjustments upon request. There is not enough evidence of fault on this point and I am satisfied the Council did not need to make reasonable adjustments when it was not aware of any need.
13. The Council responded to Ms X’s concerns about disabled parking by providing her with information about available spaces in the area. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010. If Ms X believes the Council has breached the Equality Act 2010, this is a matter for the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it was reasonable for her to use her right of appeal and because there is not enough evidence the Council failed to consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman