The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice and parking provision. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mr Y complained the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and have threatened him with further PCNs if he parks in the same place again.
Mr Y says this caused him upset and frustration.
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 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 continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr Y received a PCN for an alleged parking contravention. He contacted the Council to appeal this and to complain that there were no parking restrictions in place as there were no road markings or other indications to show the area was restricted. Following his complaint, the Council cancelled the PCN.
Mr Y was however dissatisfied with the response he received concerning the requirements for signage. The Council’s complaint response explains in detail differing requirements and where it felt it could learn from the details of Mr Y’s complaint. It also explained that if it felt there was a contravention again, it would issue a PCN. While Mr Y may have felt threatened by this, the complaint correspondence shows that this was explained by the Council to ensure that Mr Y understood there were restrictions in the area he had parked in.
The Council has already cancelled the PCN, has given Mr Y a detailed explanation of the requirements around the indicators for restrictions and has agreed to take on learning from his complaint. Any further injustice Mr Y may have had is not a serious loss, harm or distress to warrant our use of public funds to investigate. Therefore we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman