Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council issued a penalty charge notice and was responsible for him using an out of date parking permit. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to the parking adjudicator if he wanted to challenge the penalty charge notice. There is no other injustice or public interest reason for investigating the renewal of parking permits.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s electronic system for the renewal of parking permits is flawed. He says the system showed he had a valid permit and so he used it. However, the parking permit had expired and the Council issued a penalty charge notice. Mr X says the Council should refund the parking fine and improve the electronic permit renewal system.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered Mr X’s information and comments. The information held includes the Council’s reply to the complaint.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint for the following reasons:
7. The adverse consequence or injustice in this complaint is the parking fine. A complaint about a penalty charge notice is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (see paragraph 3 and 4 above). The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
8. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal if he wanted to challenge the penalty charge notice (PCN). The parking adjudicator has the power to quash the PCN. When the Council answered Mr X’s complaint it reset the fine at the discounted rate and explained Mr X’s options to appeal. I understand Mr X paid the fine. That should be an end of the matter.
9. There is insufficient evidence of fault or public interest to investigate the arrangement for renewal of parking permits. The Council has explained it sends an activation email for new permits or renewals. The information includes the expiry date. The Council says it sends renewal reminder emails, it did so in this case, and Mr X has previously renewed a permit. Mr X believes there is a ‘glitch’ in the system. However, he had a permit and should have known when it was due for renewal and the period for which he had paid.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council issued a penalty charge notice and was responsible for him using an out of date parking permit. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to the parking adjudicator if he wanted to challenge the penalty charge notice. There is no other injustice or public interest reason for investigating the renewal of parking permits.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman