The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to cancel a parking penalty charge notice as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council did not cancel a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) after a parking adjudicator at London Tribunals recommended it do this, as in their view, enforcement of the penalty would have been unduly harsh.
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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
As set out in the adjudicator’s decision to Ms X on her appeal, the Council was entitled to reject its recommendations. The Council did so and wrote to Ms X explaining why. I recognise Ms X remains unhappy with this, but we will not investigate as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and in the absence of such fault we cannot challenge its decision.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman