Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty as the Council has provided a suitable remedy for any injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider the appeal he made against a parking penalty notice it issued to him, used incorrect terminology in its communications with him, and did not keep him informed as to whether it was to take legal action against him. Mr X says this caused him significant unnecessary time, inconvenience, frustration and uncertainty over an extended period. Mr X would like the Council to formally acknowledge failures in how the matter was handled, to ensure accurate terminology is used, a written apology and a financial payment of £400.

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. 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)
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 any outstanding 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued Mr X with an Excess Charge Notice (ECN) for parking in a bay designated for motorcycles. Mr X appealed against the ECN as he said the bay markings were significantly faded, giving rise to uncertainty as to the restriction in place.
8. Mr X remains unhappy as he says the Council ignored his photographic evidence and failed to correct factual inaccuracies in its responses. Mr X says that many of the Council’s letters to him wrongly referred to the parking charge as a PCN (penalty charge notice) and that this was not a trivial matter given a PCN is issued under different legislation and as such, had the potential to mislead. Mr X also complains that after being told he would be informed of the Council’s decision about further action, no update was provided and it was only after he chased the matter several months later, he was told the ECN had been cancelled.
9. In its complaint response to Mr X, the Council acknowledged that the term PCN was used incorrectly and that staff had been told to ensure they use the correct terminology. The Council apologised to Mr X for any confusion caused in this regard and for Mr X having been caused to raise a complaint. It explained that a hold had been placed on the case which had taken it beyond the point where a legal review would have been appropriate and this had led to no update being provided to Mr X. The Council remained of the view that the ECN had been properly issued and that Mr X was liable for the charge but explained it had cancelled the ECN as a gesture of goodwill.
10. We will not investigate as the Council cancelled the ECN, apologised to Mr X, confirmed it had addressed the incorrect use of terminology with staff and explained why no update had been provided to him. I recognise Mr X may feel the apology does not go far enough and that he would wish to receive financial compensation but on balance I consider the Council has suitably remedied this case and that any further involvement by us would not be warranted, given our limited resources, and as it is unlikely it would achieve any further meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an appropriate remedy has been provided for any injustice arising from Council fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman