The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the issuing of a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because Mr Y has already appealed to the tribunal so the law says we cannot investigate. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking.
The complaint
Mr Y complains that a parking enforcement officer from the Authority lied and gave a false statement relating to a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Mr Y says consequently his PCN appeal was not upheld by the Authority, and he had to spend time appealing to the London Tribunals.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916) The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Mr Y provided, the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and our guidance on remedies.
My assessment
The Authority issued a PCN to Mr Y in 2022 for staying longer than the permitted time in a loading bay. Mr Y appealed to the Authority but this appeal was rejected. Mr Y says this decision was based on a false statement by the parking enforcement officer who issued the PCN. Mr Y then appealed to the London Tribunals. The Authority then wrote to Mr Y in May, explaining that it had decided not to contest the appeal and would therefore cancel the PCN. Mr Y then complained to us.
Analysis Mr Y has registered his appeal with the London Tribunals. The London Tribunals has accepted his application for appeal and written to the Authority, following which the Authority has decided not to contest the appeal. As Mr Y appealed to the London Tribunals, we cannot investigate this complaint, as explained in paragraph two.
Further Mr Y’s desired outcome is the name of the parking enforcement officer who issued the PCN and allegedly provided a false statement. He is also seeking a letter of apology from the officer and for the authority to issue the officer with a warning.
We investigate complaints about bodies within our jurisdiction, including this Authority. If we find fault causing injustice, we are able to recommend remedies but these are not punitive and are for the body in our jurisdiction and not directed at individual staff members.
Consequently, we would not be able to recommend that an individual staff member is named, in part as this would be against data protection rules, warned or should have to write a letter of apology to Mr Y. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because Mr Y has already appealed to the tribunal so the law says we cannot investigate. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman