The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint Transport for London wrongly issued a penalty charge notice when he parked in line with a parking sign and was not efficient in cancelling the notice. There is insufficient injustice to investigate.
The complaint
Mr X complains Transport for London wrongly issued a penalty charge notice (PCN) when he parked on a street using his blue disability badge and in accordance with the road sign. He says Transport for London did not properly consider his evidence that it had made a mistake or listen to him, and it was difficult getting through on the telephone. Mr X says Transport for London cancelled the penalty charge notice and changed the road sign. However, it caused him stress, frustration and time and trouble including visiting the location to take photographs. Mr X says it should investigate what went wrong and pay compensation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered Mr X’s information and comments and discussed the complaint with him by telephone.
My assessment
I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons: The Ombudsman investigates fault causing injustice. There is insufficient injustice to investigate because Transport for London, in February, exercised its discretion to cancel the PCN issued in January. That resolved the matter. I appreciate Mr X went to the location twice to take photographs and had a number of contacts with the authority. However, some time and inconvenience can be expected in dealing with such matters. There is insufficient public interest to investigate.
The issuing of the penalty charge notice is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because there is a right of appeal to the parking adjudicator (see paragraph 3 and 4 above). A person who appeals cannot complain to the Ombudsman or seek compensation.
Transport for London says it wrongly issued a notice of rejection giving Mr X the right to appeal to the parking adjudicator at London Tribunals. Mr X tells me he appealed to the parking adjudicator but luckily discovered the PCN had been cancelled and therefore did not need to attend the scheduled appeal hearing. In this case it appears Mr X’s appeal was ill founded because Transport for London had already cancelled the PCN. However, given Mr X did not attend the Tribunal there is insufficient injustice to investigate.
Final decision
The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint Transport for London wrongly issued a penalty charge notice when he parked in line with a parking sign and was not efficient in cancelling the notice. There is insufficient injustice to investigate.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman