Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed against it to the independent tribunal. How the Council has dealt with other motorists does not directly cause Mr X a personal injustice and so we will not investigate this aspect of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) the Council issued to him for parking partially on the kerb. Mr X says this is the established and long-standing parking practice for this road; all vehicles were parked in this manner, but enforcement was applied selectively in his case. Mr X complains the Council has not issued PCNs at this location on Sundays for the same type of parking. Mr X seeks a compensation payment for the time he spent on this matter and for the stress caused.

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. 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)
4. 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 causing significant injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The law provides an appeal process by which Mr X could have challenged the PCN, ultimately by way of an appeal to independent adjudicators to London Tribunals (LT). If Mr X considers he did not commit the contravention or that the Council did not properly consider his mitigating reasons against the PCN, then he could have used this appeal process. We are not another level of appeal and cannot make the decisions LT is empowered to. It is reasonable therefore to expect Mr X to have used his right to appeal to challenge the PCN. We will not therefore investigate.
8. I recognise Mr X is upset as he feels he was treated differently to other motorists but how the Council dealt with other motorists does not directly cause Mr X a personal injustice. The injustice to Mr X is the PCN issued to him and as explained, the way to challenge this was by way of appeal.
9. In its complaint response to Mr X, the Council confirmed it had issued PCNs on Sundays at the location but in any case, the Councils enforcement activities in this regard do not cause Mr X a personal injustice and so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the substantive injustice caused to him is the PCN and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have followed the statutory appeal process to address this. Mr X is not directly impacted from how the Council dealt with other motorists. We will not therefore investigate this aspect of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman