Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Civil Enforcement Officer’s actions which he says caused him to be issued a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. It would be reasonable to expect Mr X to use or have used the statutory representations and appeals procedure.

The complaint

1. Mr X says a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) laughed when his partner fell over which led to him parking over a white line and being issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged parking contravention.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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

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. Mr X says a CEO laughed at his girlfriend falling over. He says this caused him to park over a white line which led to the CEO issuing him a PCN for an alleged parking contravention.
8. Mr X complained to the Council that the CEO was unhelpful and rude when issuing him the PCN but did not complain the CEO laughed at his girlfriend falling over, nor that this caused him to park in the way he did.
9. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint that the CEO was rude and unhelpful when issuing the FPN. It explained the CEO reported Mr X had displayed abusive behaviour. It was unable to reconcile the very differing accounts as there was no body worn footage of the exchange due to a battery fault. It advised Mr X to use the statutory appeals process in relation to the issuing of the FPN.
10. I am not considering Mr X’s complaint about the CEO laughing at his girlfriend. This is because Mr X did not raise this in his complaint to the Council. We only consider complaints about matters the Council has already had the opportunity to consider and respond to via its full complaints procedure.
11. However, I have considered the crux of Mr X’s complaint to this office, which is that the CEO’s actions caused him to be issued a FPN. This is not a matter we will investigate. This is because the route to challenge the issuing of a FPN is via the statutory representations and appeal procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because his complaint is that the CEO’s actions caused him to be issued a PCN. It would be reasonable for Mr X to use or have used the representations and appeals procedure if he considers the PCN was unfairly issued.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman