The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s parking bay suspension signage was not compliant with the relevant regulations. This is because the injustice caused to Mr X lies in a penalty charge notice against which he has appealed. We will not investigate Mr X’s more general complaint about the Council’s signage as the issue is more appropriate for consideration by London Tribunals on a case by case basis as part of an appeal.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to comply with regulations requiring it to set out the times when suspensions to parking bays applied. Mr X received a penalty charge notice (PCN) against which he has appealed and is unhappy the Council has failed to address the issue.
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 may decide not to start an investigation if 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 can appeal to a tribunal. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal but cannot investigate if the person has already appealed. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Because Mr X has appealed against the PCN we cannot investigate any complaint about the Council’s actions in issuing the PCN; this includes whether the signage displayed at the time was adequate. The Adjudicator has cancelled the PCN and any remaining injustice Mr X claims from the PCN process falls outside our jurisdiction to remedy.
While Mr X raises concerns generally about the Council’s signage and the impact of this on other members of the public we do not consider there is a significant enough public interest to investigate the issue further.
The Adjudicator’s decision to cancel the PCN does not create a precedent and each case must be considered on its merits. The Council confirms only one other PCN was issued in similar circumstances to the PCN Mr X received and if the recipient felt it had been issued wrongly it would have been reasonable for them to appeal as Mr X did. All PCNs carry a right of appeal and if the Tribunal considers the issuing authority acted unreasonably it has discretion to award costs against it.
Ultimately it is for the Council to decide what information to include on its signs and whether any restrictions or suspensions (along with any PCNs issued for failure to comply with the restrictions or suspensions) are enforceable is a matter for London Tribunals.
Final decision
We cannot investigate any complaint about the adequacy of the signage or the issue of the PCN to Mr X because Mr X has used his right of appeal. We will not investigate Mr X’s more general concerns about the Council’s signage as the issue is more appropriate for London Tribunals to consider as part of an appeal.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman