Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and removal of Mr Y’s car. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and the Council’s actions after it removed his car. He says the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act to enable him to reclaim his car.
2. He says the Council disregarded his illness. Mr Y says this made him feel anxious, humiliated, and emotionally drained.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to Mr Y. Some days later, the Council removed Mr Y’s car.
6. Mr Y contacted the Council, explaining that he was suffering a severe mental health episode at the time his vehicle was removed.
7. The Council acknowledged Mr Y’s circumstances. It agreed to a reduction in the charge for the release of Mr Y’s car, and a payment plan for the outstanding charges. It did not have to do this but did it to show goodwill.
8. Mr Y says his car should be released without needing to pay an upfront cost. The Council has explained to Mr Y that this is not possible.
9. Mr Y says the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. The purpose of reasonable adjustments is to make sure Disabled people can access the same services as non-Disabled people without any disadvantage.
10. There is no evidence the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s case has put him at a disadvantage compared to non-Disabled people whose cars are removed after a PCN. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.
11. Mr Y does not appear to be complaining about the Council’s decision to issue him with a PCN. If he does wish to challenge this, he can appeal to London Tribunals. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman