Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a parking ticket. This is because the actions complained about did not cause Mr X significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council handled a parking ticket it issued him for parking in an electric vehicles’ charging space. Mr X paid the required fee however wants the ticket to be reconsidered.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council issued Mr X with a parking ticket for parking in an electric vehicles’ charging space. Mr X says the charging station is broken and cannot be used to charge vehicles. He says as a result of this, local residents use this space for parking. Mr X paid the charge for the ticket at the reduced rate of £80 and the Council closed his case after payment was received.
6. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
7. Furthermore, Mr X had a right of appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) he received. We would therefore expect him to have continued to challenge the PCN, and ultimately to appeal to the London Tribunals, had he felt it was wrongly issued and should be cancelled. The Council’s complaints procedure does not provide an alternative to this.
8. Mr X is nevertheless unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will therefore not investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman