London Borough of Newham (24 016 455)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delays in handling events on a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. We are satisfied with the actions the Council proposes to take, and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything further.
The complaint
- Mr X said the Council wrongly seized his car and issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for a parking violation he did not commit because the signage was defective. It then charged him a fine of £305 to return his car to him. Mr X also complained of delays and poor communication from the Council and says he has spent a lot of time and energy trying to resolve the situation, which has caused him frustration and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
- We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
- We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), 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
- If we were to investigate this complaint, it is likely we would find the Council at fault. Mr X challenged a PCN but did not receive the Council’s response. It did not tell him until four months later he could submit a late witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre, part of the county court. This is a function that allows motorists to make a late challenge if there are reasons outside of their control that have prevented them from doing so within 28 days.
- The Council did not contest the court challenge but accepted it was at fault for not displaying the correct signage and said it would ensure this was displayed. It also cancelled the PCN and refunded Mr X the £305 he had paid, but only after further delay.
Agreed Action
- To recognise the inconvenience and frustration caused to Mr X the Council has agreed to make a payment of £400, and should make the payment within four weeks of this decision statement.
Final decision
- We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman