Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s penalty charge notice. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council mishandled his complaint and failed to use discretion when it considered his penalty charge notice (PCN). He says he was helping his disabled mother during a medical emergency when the PCN was issued and gave medical evidence, but the Council dismissed it on technical grounds. Mr X says his complaint is about how the Council handled the case and its failure to consider exceptional circumstances and vulnerability, not the validity of the PCN. He also says the Council treated his complaint as a late appeal and said it fell outside the complaints process.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We do not look again at a decision to decide if it was wrong. We look at the process an organisation used to make its decision. If it followed the correct steps, we cannot question the outcome, even if the complainant disagrees.
8. The Council issued the penalty charge notice (PCN) and then a Notice to Owner (NTO) when it remained unpaid. Mr X challenged the PCN on medical‑emergency grounds and said he had a Blue Badge on display. The Council explained that there was no Blue Badge on display and in any event a Blue Badge does not allow parking in a loading bay.
9. The Council reviewed the doctor’s letter Mr X provided. It rejected the letter because it did not contain verification details needed for checks.
10. The Ombudsman cannot decide what evidence a council should accept when it considers a PCN challenge. We can only check whether the Council looked at the evidence and followed the correct process.
11. Mr X later paid the PCN and then asked to continue appealing, but payment closes the statutory appeal route. The Council could not consider the PCN again.
12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement as the Council followed its process and procedures.
13. Finally, we will not investigate how the Council handled Mr X’s complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint procedures when we cannot look at the main issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman