The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to notify him about the expiry of his blue badge. This is because the injustice he claims lies in the issue of a penalty charge notice against which it would have been reasonable for him to appeal. Mr X paid the penalty charge at the discounted rate of £35 and this amount is not significant enough to warrant our further involvement in the matter.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to notify him that his blue badge was due to expire. As a result he received a penalty charge notice (PCN), which he paid at the discounted rate of £35.
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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) 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) The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X’s blue badge expired in early 2022. In February, while parked on double yellow lines and displaying his expired blue badge, the Council issued him a PCN.
There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them. When a council issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal; appeals at this stage are known as ‘informal challenges’.
If the motorist submits an informal challenge to a PCN and the Council decides not to accept them, it will write to the motorist and explain why. If the motorist accepts the Council’s reasons they may pay the PCN; if not, they may wait for a ‘notice to owner’. This provides a further opportunity for the owner of the vehicle to pay the charge or make ‘formal representations’ against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
Mr X informally challenged the PCN on the grounds he had received no reminder from the Council about his blue badge expiring, but the Council refused his challenge. He then paid the PCN at the discounted rate of £35 and complained.
We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
While Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to remind him about the expiry of his blue badge, rather than the issue of the PCN, his main injustice lies in the PCN and his £35 payment to settle it. Mr X confirms the amount has not placed him in financial difficulty and we do not consider it is not significant enough to warrant investigation. We also consider that it would have been reasonable for Mr X to challenge the PCN under the process set out above on the grounds of mitigation, which he references as part of his complaint.
Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice Mr X claims is not significant enough to warrant investigation and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman