Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking matter. This is because the injustice he claims stems from the penalty charge notices issued by the Council and it would be reasonable for him to appeal against them to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council provided incorrect information about the use of resident’s parking permits leading to the issue of four penalty charge notices (PCNs) for parking contraventions. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint about the matter.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. I cannot determine whether the Council provided incorrect information to Mr X’s partner about the use of resident’s parking permits because there is insufficient evidence to support Mr X’s claim. Mr X raised the point with the Council as part of his complaint but the Council could not confirm the advice given and directed him back to the appeals process.
9. While Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response, and with the tone of its responses to his challenges to the PCNs, his injustice lies in the PCNs themselves and I am satisfied the appeals process provides a suitable alterative remedy for the issue. If Mr X wishes to challenge the PCNs further, including on the basis that he followed the Council’s instructions when parking his vehicle, it would be reasonable for him to make formal representations against the PCNs and, if these are refused, appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman