Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation into the conduct of a civil enforcement officer as any injustice caused to the complainant is not sufficient to warrant our further involvement and it is unlikely we could add to what the Council has already said. Any issues relating to the parking penalty charge notice Mr X was issued could have been appealed against to the independent tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate the complaint he made to it about the conduct of a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) when Mr X was issued with a parking penalty charge notice (PCN). Mr X says this has caused him distress and frustration and to spend time and effort pursuing the complaint.

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’, 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The law says 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

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. We will not investigate the Council’s investigation of the CEO’s conduct as in isolation, I do not consider this caused Mr X a level of injustice sufficient to warrant our further involvement. Additionally, in the absence of any other corroborating evidence it is unlikely we could come to a view, even on balance, about what took place.
8. If Mr X considers the conduct invalidated the PCN he was issued, then he had the right to appeal against it to independent adjudicators at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT). It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have followed the statutory appeal procedure had he wanted to challenge the PCN, and we are not empowered to make the decisions of the TPT. We will not therefore investigate the PCN itself.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because in isolation, the Council's handling of it, did not cause him a level of injustice that would justify our further involvement. Any challenge against the PCN itself could ultimately have been made to the TPT.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman