The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Controlled Parking Zone because the complaint is late without good reason. Even if we investigated we would be unlikely to find the Council at fault because there is no evidence its actions are flawed in the way the complainant believes, and it would be reasonable for residents to appeal against Penalty Charge Notices they may receive for parking in the area.
The complaint
Ms X says the Council introduced a parking permit scheme in her area, including her cul-de-sac, despite objections from residents. She says the Council has not displayed any parking signage to indicate the cul-de-sac is included within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and says this causes confusion to residents and other motorists, who have subsequently been issued Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). She wants the Council to display the relevant signage and cancel the PCNs given to residents.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
We would not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The information I have seen shows the Council correctly followed its statutory process for implementing the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). Between 2020-2022, it consulted with residents, including those living in Ms X’s cul-de-sac, and subsequently implemented the CPZ on an experimental basis. It then made the restrictions permanent in 2023, duly notifying the affected residents. This means Ms X has been aware of the matters she raises for longer than 12 months, making this complaint to us late. There is no good reason Ms X could not have complained before now, so no reason for us to investigate.
Even if this were not the case, the Council explains it has not displayed signage at the entry point of the cul-de-sac, because it operates a ‘past this point’ controlled parking zone and has displayed CPZ signage on the two roads either side of Ms X’s cul-de-sac. The law only requires signage for a CPZ at the entrances to the zone, not to each road within it.
Regardless of the signage, Ms X has known for some years about the parking restrictions and requirements for residents to have a permit from the Council’s correspondence. So the Council’s signage does not cause Ms X a significant injustice that would justify an Ombudsman investigation.
Penalty Charge Notices carry a right of appeal. If Ms X has received a PCN which she believes to be unlawful, it would be reasonable for her to make representations against it and then use her right of appeal to London Tribunals.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the complaint is late without good reason. But even it was not, there is not enough evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to Ms X to justify an investigation. If Ms X receives PCNs she believes are unlawful it would be reasonable for her to use the alternative remedy by way of a right of appeal to a tribunal.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman