Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s parking enforcement. This is because any failure to issue penalty charge notices to third parties does not cause Mr X significant injustice. If Mr X wished to challenge the penalty charge notices he received it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s civil enforcement officers (CEOs) are operating unfairly by issuing penalty charge notices (PCNs) to certain vehicles but not others.

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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
8. CEOs may issue PCNs where a motorist has failed to comply with parking restrictions. While they have the power to issue PCNs there is no statutory duty or obligation to do so in every case.
9. Mr X’s complaint concerns the Council’s CEOs not issuing PCNs to vehicles owned by certain companies but this does not cause him significant injustice.
10. Mr X’s main injustice lies in the PCNs he has received and if he believes they are invalid it would have been reasonable for him to make representations against them and appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because any failure to issue PCNs to third parties does not cause Mr X significant injustice. If Mr X disputes the PCNs he has received it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman