The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating the Council’s consideration of the mitigating circumstances and where it delayed in responding to Mr Y’s correspondence any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mr Y complained the Council has not accepted his mitigating circumstances after it issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for parking on a single yellow line during restricted hours and then failed to respond to Mr Y’s correspondence in a timely manner.
Mr Y says he has been upset and feels the Council lacked compassion for his late mother’s needs.
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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued a PCN to Mr Y in May 2021 after he parked on a single yellow line during restricted parking hours. Mr Y paid the penalty but asked the Council to consider his mitigating circumstances for the contravention. Mr Y told the Council he had been delivering shopping to his elderly mother and had parked on the yellow line to do this. He asked the Council to use its discretion to cancel the PCN and to give him a refund.
Mr Y complained to the Council as it had not responded to his letters about the PCN. The Council gave its final response in June 2022. It apologised for the delay in its responses to Mr Y. It agreed to remind staff of its high expectations for customer service and said it would provide training for staff where necessary.
The Council then explained its officers had considered Mr Y’s mitigating circumstances but had found that as the PCN had been issued after Mr Y had been parked for 10 minutes on the yellow line. It said that this would have given Mr Y the time to drop off any shopping to his elderly mother and then go elsewhere to park. Consequently, it did not use its discretion to cancel the PCN and did not uphold this part of Mr Y’s complaint. Mr Y then approached us.
Analysis There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr Y’s mitigating circumstances relating to the PCN. The Council has shown how it has considered its use of discretion and applied this to the circumstances put forward by Mr Y. It has chosen not to use its discretion in this matter. While this may upset Mr Y, as the Council has properly considered the issue and is able to explain its rationale, it is unlikely we would find fault. We will therefore not investigate.
The Council has however admitted fault in its handling of the correspondence from Mr Y, agreeing that its responses were delayed. It has apologised and taken action to try to prevent the same problem happening again. We would consider this a proportionate and appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. Any remaining injustice would not be significant enough to justify our involvement and we will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating the Council’s consideration of the mitigating circumstances and where it delayed in responding to Mr Y’s correspondence any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman