Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council towing Mr X’s vehicle. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an investigation by us.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains his work van was removed by the Council when he parked in a permit bay without a permit. He says the Council’s reasoning for this is that he is a persistent evader, and that this means the Council did not properly consider the circumstances of the specific case in making its decision to tow.
2. Mr X would like the Ombudsman to consider whether the Council should provide Mr X with financial redress and whether it should carry out service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X parked his work van in a permit only parking space for which he did not have a permit.
7. The Council removed his vehicle and explained it had taken this action because he had more than three outstanding Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs), which made him a ‘persistent evader’. It told Mr X verbally how he could make representations against the action to the Council.
8. Mr X complained the Council’s actions were disproportionate to the actual offence of parking in a permit only space without a permit.
9. The Council explained that Statutory guidance for local authorities state a persistent evader’s vehicle should be subject to the strongest possible enforcement.
10. The Council considered Mr X’s comments and acknowledged it had not given him written details of how to make representations when it towed his vehicle, as it should have.
11. In recognition it had not followed the correct process, the Council agreed to refund the cost of releasing the vehicle.
12. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s response as it did not refund the cost of the Penalty Charge.
13. The Council remained of the view the Penalty Charge was issued correctly.
14. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide the validity of the PCN. There is a Tribunal which can do this.
15. With regard to the process followed, I have considered the information provided and I am satisfied the Council has acknowledged and addressed a fault in its process as part of its internal complaints handling process appropriately.
16. I do not consider that further consideration would lead to a different outcome, so there is no worthwhile reason to investigate further.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman