The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is not significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mr Y complained the Council unfairly issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to him within the time it took him to buy a ticket to pay for parking.
Mr Y says this was unfair and he has paid £25 for the PCN which he would like to be refunded.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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 Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued Mr Y with a PCN for parking without making payment. Mr Y says this was unfair as he has an injury which meant it took him longer to walk to and from the ticket machine and so he was unable to return to his car before the PCN was issued.
Mr Y complained to the Council about this in August, saying that he felt the lack of time he was given to get the ticket before a PCN was issued was unfair and discriminatory to those who have mobility issues.
In response, the Council made Mr Y aware of his right to appeal. Mr Y also says it told him he could view CCTV for the car park, but told him this the day after the deadline to request this had expired. Mr Y feels this was unfair.
Mr Y paid the penalty of £25 in early August, as he did not want it to increase to £50. He then contacted us.
Analysis Mr Y paid the £25 penalty to stop the amount increasing to £50 and in doing so admitted liability for the PCN and the penalty. He did this after the Council made him aware that he could not both appeal to the Tribunal and pay at the lower amount. We would not consider the payment of £25 to be a significant enough injustice which would warrant our investigation.
Mr Y chose not to challenge the PCN at the Tribunal, which may have allowed him a fresh consideration of his appeal if he felt the Council’s information had not been sufficient for him or it had not properly considered the evidence it had from the CCTV properly. While Mr Y may feel it is unfair, we would not consider this as a significant enough injustice which would warrant our involvement in this complaint. Consequently, we will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman