The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice and indirect racism. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could have followed the statutory process.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and says the officer was rude, abrasive, and demonstrated indirect racism. Mr X wants the Council to cancel the PCN, apologise and pay compensation.
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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (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. This includes the complaint correspondence and correspondence about the PCN. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
When someone disagrees with a PCN they can follow the statutory process and appeal to the tribunal. If they neither pay nor appeal the Council can register the PCN in court. If the person did not receive the Notice to Owner they can use the Order for Recovery to apply for a witness statement. If the court grants a witness statement the process re-sets and the person has another chance to pay or appeal.
The Council issued Mr X with a PCN for parking partially on the path and in a restricted street. Mr X says that, before he received the PCN, he explained why he had briefly stopped and said the signage was inadequate. Mr X says the officer became rude, abrasive and immediately issued a PCN. Mr X says the officer issued the PCN because Mr X is white; Mr X says the officer demonstrated indirect racism.
Mr X complained about the PCN and behaviour of the officer but he did not follow the statutory process to challenge the PCN. In response to the complaint the Council spoke to the officer who denied the allegations and said he only issued the PCN after Mr X declined to move to a valid parking spot; the officer said Mr X shouted at him. The Council said there was no evidence to support Mr X’s complaint or allegation of racism.
Mr X did not appeal the PCN although he later said he had not received the Notice to Owner. The Council registered the debt in court and sent Mr X an Order for Recovery. The Council told Mr X what he needed to do to apply to have the process re-set.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council acted appropriately by considering Mr X’s complaint about the officer but, as there is no independent evidence as to what happened, it cannot do more than explain the officer’s view of events. It also found no evidence of racism. I acknowledge Mr X’s strength of feeling but, like the Council, as I did not witness the events I cannot say there was fault by the officer or the Council. In addition, as there is a statutory process to challenge PCNs, the Council would not be expected to cancel a PCN as part of the complaints process.
I also will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have challenged the PCN through the statutory process. Or, as he says he did not receive the documents, he could send a witness statement to the court. It would, however, be for the court to decide if there are grounds to grant a witness statement. If Mr X takes no action, and does not pay, then the Council could instruct bailiffs. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to use the formal process because that is the mechanism, established by the government, to challenge PCNs.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Mr X could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman