Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking or traffic contravention. It would be reasonable to expect the complainant to have used the statutory representations and appeals procedure. We could not add to the Council’s investigation into the actions of an enforcement agent.

The complaint

1. X says the Council wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged traffic contravention. And that an enforcement agent failed to consider X’s vulnerability when payment was collected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
3. 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. If the person has already appealed we have no power to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the rest of England.
5. 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Assessment

7. I will not investigate X’s complaint about the issuing of the PCN. This is because it would be reasonable for them to have used the representations and appeals procedure.
8. In responding to X’s complaint about the actions of the enforcement agent, the Council said that there was very little body worn camera footage. A statement made by the enforcement officer, showed that they had a different recollection of events to X.
9. I will not investigate X’s complaint about the actions of the enforcement agent. This is because it is unlikely a further investigation of the matter by us could add in any meaningful way to the response already provided via the Council’s own investigation. Both parties have given their account of what happened and what was said during the visit and these recollections clearly differ. I have no reason to doubt either party’s recollections. It is very unlikely that a further investigation would lead to either party changing their recollection of events now. The available information has already been considered via the Council’s investigation and there is nothing further we could add were we to also investigate. I do not see that we could reliably reconcile the differing accounts further to the response already provided by the Council. As a result, it would not be a good use of limited public funds for us to also investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate X’s complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for them to have used the representations and appeals procedure and we could not add to the Council’s investigation into the actions of the enforcement officer.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman