The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing to issue his son a parking permit and issuing penalty charge notices when he continued to park without a permit. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and Mr X had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notices which it would have been reasonable for him to use.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council refused to issue his son Y a permit to park on a council housing estate. He says this led to Y, who has mental health issues, incurring nearly £7,000 of penalty charges in his name for parking without a valid permit.
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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) 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) London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says he is unable to eat or sleep as a result of the debt accrued by Y. He says the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for his son and that it was wrong to issue the penalty charge notices (PCNs) to him.
But the Council issued the PCNs because Y had parked in permit-holders only spaces without displaying a valid permit and it is under no obligation to cancel the PCNs because of Y’s mental health issues.
Y applied for a parking permit and would have understood that parking without one would result in the issue of PCNs. The Council’s decision not to grant Y a permit was in accordance with its policy at the time and it is Mr X as the vehicle owner, rather than Y, who is liable for the PCNs.
There is no question the parking contraventions occurred and we could not therefore say the Council was at fault for issuing the PCNs. We cannot therefore say the Council must cancel them.
Had Mr X felt there were grounds for cancellation it would have been reasonable for him to appeal. Each PCN carried a right of appeal, firstly to the Council and then to London Tribunals, and if London Tribunals felt the Council had not properly considered his reasons for challenging the PCNs it could have directed the Council to reconsider them.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and if Mr X had wished to challenge the PCNs it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman