LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Upheld

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham

22-008-064 · Transport And Highways › Parking And Other Penalties · Decision date: 05 October 2022

Full Decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because the Council has agreed to cover the cost of the penalty charge and this provides a suitable remedy for Miss X.

The complaint

The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council took too long to progress a penalty charge notice (PCN) and failed to consider her late representations against the PCN.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

How I considered this complaint

I considered information provided by Miss X’s representative, Mr Y, and the Council.

I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

The Council accepts it failed to consider Miss X’s late representations and whether to offer her a further opportunity to pay at the discounted rate. It also accepts failures in the handling of Miss X’s complaints.

Agreed action

The Council has agreed to cover the cost of the PCN so Miss X will not receive any further demands for payment and does not need to take any further action. This provides a suitable remedy for the complaint.

Final decision

We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has agreed to cover the cost of the PCN and this provides a suitable remedy for her injustice.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman