The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council issued the complainant a penalty charge notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because the Council promptly cancelled the penalty charge notice and later apologised to the complainant. There is insufficient evidence of the complainant suffering a significant enough injustice to warrant our involvement. Moreover, further investigation of the issues is unlikely to result in a different outcome.
The complaint
The complainant (Mr X) complains about the manner in which a civil enforcement officer (CEO) from the Council issued him a penalty charge notice (PCN) for an alleged parking contravention. Mr X says he received a PCN while trying to purchase a parking ticket from a faulty machine. He feels the Council has handled his concerns poorly and that it is not doing enough to protect people living in its area from unjustified enforcement action.
In summary, Mr X says the alleged fault caused him to receive an unjustified PCN. Despite that the Council later cancelled the PCN, he says this still caused him to suffer distress, anxiety and inconvenience. As a desired outcome, Mr X wants the Council to adopt a policy which prevents PCNs being issued in circumstances such as his.
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued Mr X a PCN in early 2024. The following day, Mr X made a complaint to the Council with his challenges against the PCN. The day after receiving Mr X’s complaint, the Council responded by notifying him of its decision to cancel the PCN. The Council has since apologised to Mr X.
The Ombudsman is only required to accept a complaint where the complainant has been caused a significant and personal injustice because of fault by the Council. This means Mr X would need to show he has suffered serious loss, harm or distress due to fault by the Council. While I recognise what Mr X says about the PCN causing him stress and inconvenience, I do not consider this to be a matter which has caused him serious loss, harm or distress to warrant our involvement. The Council took prompt action to address the problem and by cancelling the PCN and apologising, it has remedied any injustice caused. I do not consider further investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of Mr X suffering a significant enough injustice to warrant our involvement. Moreover, the Council has apologised and cancelled the PCN and so further investigation of the issue is unlikely to result in a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman