The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council issuing her with a parking Penalty Charge Notice which stated the wrong location. This is because the Council later cancelled the Notice. So, Mrs B has not suffered a significant injustice which would justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mrs B complains the Council issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged parking contravention which stated the wrong location. Mrs B says she had to put in representations to the Council twice before the Council accepted the error and cancelled this PCN. Mrs B would like the Council to pay her compensation for her time challenging this PCN and the distress it caused.
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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs B and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
There is a statutory process for challenging a PCN which involves the motorist making representations to the authority which issued the PCN. If this does not result in the authority cancelling the PCN, the motorist may put in an appeal to an independent tribunal to decide the matter. We generally expect this process to be used.
Mrs B used this process by making representations to challenge this PCN. This resulted in the Council cancelling the PCN.
Mrs B may have been put to some time and trouble putting in representations to the Council and the PCN may have caused her some distress. But, this was put right when the Council cancelled this PCN. The Council has also apologised for its error. This was a suitable response from the Council.
Also, apart from the mistake recording the street location, the Council is satisfied this PCN was correctly issued. So, even if there had been no fault by the Council and the enforcement officer had recorded the location correctly, Mrs B would have still been required to challenge this PCN or pay it.
So, Mrs B has not suffered a serious or significant injustice which would justify an investigation or the pursuit of a financial remedy by the Ombudsman.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because she has not suffered a serious or significant injustice which would justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman