Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a recommendation made by the parking adjudicator. There is insufficient evidence of injustice to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of a recommendation made by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal to consider cancelling her Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
2. Miss X says the Council’s consideration did not adequately explain its decision-making, relied on unsupported assumptions about parking availability and her medical circumstances, and did not address concerns she raised through its complaints process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))
4. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

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 complaint arises from Miss X’s appeal to a Traffic Penalty Tribunal concerning the Council issuing Miss X with a PCN. While the Tribunal upheld the Council’s decision, the parking adjudicator recommended the Council consider cancelling the PCN.

Miss X is dissatisfied with how the Council decided not to cancel the PCN. She does not consider the Council has adequately demonstrated how it decided not to cancel the PCN.

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of an injustice in the way the Council considered the parking adjudicator’s request.
9. Even if there were administrative faults in the way the Council explained or documented its reconsideration decision to Miss X, we will not investigate. The Council has confirmed its final position, and the claimed injustice is limited to dissatisfaction with the Council's decision-making and lack of complaint responses rather than any significant additional injustice separate from the liability for the PCN itself.
10. In these circumstances, there is insufficient evidence of a significant injustice that would justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman