Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a Penalty Charge Notice and removing Mr X’s vehicle. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve a different outcome and it is reasonable for Mr X to escalate a claim for damage to his vehicle to the courts.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly issued him a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), removed his vehicle and caused damage to the vehicle. He said the Council accepted the PCN and removal should not have taken place, but then declined his request for compensation. He said it then failed to respond to his complaint.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him distress, inconvenience and financial loss. He said the Council refunded the £360 he had paid to recover his vehicle, but he did not think this was enough to remedy his injustice.
3. Mr X wanted the Council to acknowledge fault, apologise and amend the signage at the location. He also wanted it to pay him compensation of £1,800 to recognise his distress and inconvenience and the damage sustained to his vehicle.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
5. We also do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X complains about the Council issuing a PCN and seizing his vehicle. We previously considered a complaint from Mr X, which related to the Council issuing a PCN and it seizing Mr X’s vehicle in the same location.
10. Mr X made representations to the Council, and it accepted its signage was again defective, therefore it should not have issued the PCN or seized Mr X’s vehicle. The Council explained it had updated its signage following Mr X’s previous complaint but that the new signage had been vandalised.
11. The Council refunded Mr X the £360 he had paid to retrieve his vehicle. Mr X considered a higher financial remedy was due to him because the fault had been repeated, causing him added stress and inconvenience. He also said his vehicle had sustained damage whilst being seized. The Council declined his request.
    Mr X brought his complaint to us.
12. Our remedies aim to be restorative, focused on trying to put things right. They are not intended to punish the organisation in the way a court might, for example, in the form of awarding damages, or as punitive compensation. Where compensation for damage caused to property is a person’s primary aim, we will normally signpost them to the courts. When deciding on a suitable personal remedy we also consider whether the actions of the complainant contributed to the problem.
13. In this case, we could not achieve a different or more meaningful outcome by investigating the complaint. The Council has already provided a suitable remedy for any frustration and inconvenience caused by its actions. Mr X parked in a location where he knew restrictions existed, despite the signage again being defective. Investigation by us would not lead to a further payment for his distress and inconvenience. Only the courts can consider Mr X’s claim for damage to his vehicle where a claim through the Council’s insurers has been denied.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve a different outcome and it is reasonable for Mr X to escalate a claim for damage to his vehicle to the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman