The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre; there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and where we are not investigating the substantive issue, we will not investigate complaint handling.
The complaint
Mr Y complains the Council wrongly issued two Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs), including one when he was visiting the Council’s offices to try to challenge the first PCN. He also complains the Council refused to let him buy a resident permit to park in the area in which he owns a property. Mr Y has then complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint about the PCNs.
Mr Y says he has suffered financially and has been inconvenienced.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued two PCNs to Mr Y in November 2021. One was issued when Mr Y visited the Council’s offices to try to speak to someone about the first PCN as he had been unable to speak to the Council by telephone. Mr Y complained about this in November. The Council referred Mr Y to his right to appeal the PCNs and apologised for any customer service issues Mr Y had experienced, such as being kept on hold for long periods and added that the staff involved had had further training about the processes Mr Y had queried. It also confirmed Mr Y would not be eligible for a resident permit for parking in the area because while he owned a property in the area, this was not his main residence. It then referred Mr Y to us in December.
Mr Y has a right to appeal the PCNs he received to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), based at Northampton County Court. This is often free and adjustments can be made to allow access for those with disabilities, so we would consider it reasonable for Mr Y be expected to use his right of appeal. We will therefore not investigate the Council’s issuing of the PCNs.
Mr Y says the Council has refused to let him buy a resident permit to park outside of his property, which he was in when the first PCN was issued. The Council explained that part of the criteria to be eligible for a resident permit is that the property is a person’s main residence. While Mr Y was staying at the property during renovation work before it could be relet, it was not his main residence. Consequently, as Mr Y did not meet the criteria in the Council’s policy, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.
Mr Y has also complained about the customer service he received when he contacted the Council to complain about the issuing of the PCNs. Mr Y says the Council took a long time to answer the phone and he found it hard to speak to anyone about the PCNs. This led to Mr Y feeling frustrated. However, where we are not investigating the substantive issue of complaint, we will not investigate complaint handling. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal the two PCNs to the TEC. Further, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and where we are not investigating the substantive issue, we will not investigate complaint handling.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman