Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s contractor incurring a penalty charge notice when the Council moved to a new parking permit platform. This is because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s investigation and there is unlikely to be a worthwhile outcome achievable.

The complaint

1. In summary, Mr X complains he was unable to obtain clear advice or assistance from the permit team during the Council's change to a new parking permit system. He says his attempts to contact the service were unsuccessful and this prevented his contractors from carrying out work at a rental property.
2. Mr X also complains his contractor received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), which Mr X paid. He also complains the council's permit guidance was unclear.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))

4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and I have read the Council’s complaints responses to him.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint. The Council accepts there were service pressures during the change to the new platform. It said improvements had since been made, including increased staffing and improved call handling.
9. The Council found permit information was available online throughout the change. It did not find evidence of residents being unable to access permit information altogether. The Council agreed to pass on Mr X’s suggestion about clearer guidance for consideration. It also explained it could not consider reimbursement of the PCN through the complaints process. It explained this was due to the separate legal process available for challenging parking penalties through an appeal to London Tribunals. Overall, the Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint.
10. We will not investigate. This is because we are unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome or be able to add to the Council’s investigation. The Council has acknowledged the service difficulties arising during the change to the new system. And it has explained the improvements it has made to reduce this happening in future. It has also agreed to consider Mr X’s suggestion for clearer permit guidance and a landlord/property manager flowchart.
11. The main issue appears to be Mr X’s dissatisfaction with a PCN issued to a contractor and his £80 payment. However, the Council cannot overturn or refund a PCN through its complaints process. Any challenge to a PCN is subject to the separate legal process via London Tribunals. We normally expect people aggrieved about being issued with a PCN to use their legal right of appeal.
12. As the Council has already considered the complaint, implemented service improvements, and agreed to consider the suggested changes to guidance, we will not investigate. This is because further investigation is unlikely to be able to add to the Council’s investigation or achieve any worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unable to add to the Council’s investigation and there is no worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman