Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council poorly managing his renewal application for a parking permit and issuing him a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This is because we could not add to the Council’s investigation and it would be reasonable for Mr X to challenge the PCN with London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council poorly managed his application for a resident parking permit which resulted in him receiving a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). He said the matter caused him distress. He wants the Council to reinstate his application, provide him with a financial remedy and to ensure such errors do not happen again. He also wants the Council to cancel the PCN.

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
4. 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. If the person has already appealed we have no power to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the rest of England.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr X and the Council and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X said when he applied to the Council to renew his parking permit, the Council failed to notify him that it required further supporting evidence and subsequently rejected his application.
8. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council accepted it had poorly managed his application. It said its request for supporting evidence had not been clear and there was also fault with how it had rejected his application. The Council apologised to Mr X for the injustice it had caused him and said it would reinstate his application. It also told Mr X it would review its service to prevent a recurrence of fault. This was appropriate and what we would expect the Council to do. We could not add to its investigation.
9. Mr X said he thought he had submitted his application and supporting evidence correctly and so assumed there were no problems. During this time however, the Council issued him a PCN. It would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to challenge the PCN with London Tribunals.
10. For the above reasons, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s investigation and it would be reasonable for Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman