Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s representations against a penalty charge notice as it is unlikely we will find fault and Mr X could have appealed against the fine.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to fairly consider his representations against a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) and did not respond to evidential points that he made. Mr X complains he did not receive the Council’s rejection of his representations until the period in which he could pay the PCN at the discounted rate was nearly up. Mr X says this forced him into paying or risking the charge doubling before receiving a proper answer to his representations. Mr X says he has been caused frustration and distress.

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 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, or significant injustice, to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)

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 Council considered Mr X’s representations against the PCN but decided not to cancel it. While the Council may not have explicitly referred to Mr X’s case that he had paid two visits to the location (Mr X said he had dropped someone off and returned later to pick them up), it is clear from its response that it remained of the view that Mr X had been parked there for the duration and why it considered this to be the case. We will not investigate as I do not consider that Mr X’s complaint provides evidence of fault in the way the Council responded or of procedural unfairness.
8. I recognise that Mr X continued to dispute the Council’s case and that he maintained he had not committed the contravention. As such, the appropriate next step was for him to formally appeal to the Council and then to the independent tribunal, had the Council still not cancelled the PCN. I do not consider that how the Council dealt with Mr X’s initial representations meant that it was not reasonable to expect him to have followed the statutory appeal process.
9. I do not consider Mr X was caused an injustice from any alleged delay in the Council sending him its rejection of his representations as he was able to pay the PCN at the discounted rate. Nor do I agree that Mr X was forced into paying at this point as he could have continued with his appeal. The law governing the enforcement of PCNs essentially offers the motorist the choice of paying a PCN at a discounted rate or appealing. Mr X chose to pay the PCN at the discounted rate.
10. That the Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint is not evidence of it being at fault and in any case, any alleged fault in the Council’s handling of the complaint, in isolation, did not cause any significant injustice to Mr X. We will not investigate this aspect of the complaint, therefore.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed against the PCN.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman