Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information on a pay by phone parking app which the complainant says is misleading. This is because the complainant could have used his appeal rights and because the Council has already taken satisfactory action.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the pay by phone parking app provides information which is contrary to the road signs and misleading. Mr X says the Council should ensure the information on the app is correct.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
5. We may decide not to start 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X. This includes the complaint correspondence and information about the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. If someone disputes a PCN they can appeal to the tribunal. They could appeal on the grounds that they think the signs are misleading, or they had displayed a valid parking permit or ticket. If someone pays a PCN they cannot appeal to the tribunal.
8. Mr X parked at about 7pm and used a pay by phone app to pay for the parking. The app gave a receipt showing he had paid for parking until 8am the following day. A few hours later Mr X found the Council had issued a PCN.
9. Mr X challenged the fine with the Council. He said he had paid for his parking and had a receipt. He said he had parked at that location before. He also said the app should reflect the correct position regarding permitted parking.
10. The Council rejected his challenge. It said he had parked where parking is not allowed from 8pm to 8am; it provided a photograph of the sign showing the restriction during these hours. The Council gave Mr X the option to pay the fine or start the formal process which can include appealing to the tribunal. Mr X paid the fine at the discounted rate and then complained to the Council.
11. Mr X complained that the app gives different information to the position shown on the signs. He said the Council has a duty to ensure the information is not misleading.
12. In response the Council said the on-street signs correctly state that the area where he parked is restricted from 8am to 8pm. It said it is the responsibility of drivers to check the signs and the on-street signage is adequate. It also said that the information on road markings and signs overrides the app. The Council explained that the information on the app receipt (saying parking had been purchased until 8am) referred to a bay in a different street. However, the Council also said it had contacted the app provider and the information on the app and payment machine had been updated to avoid any further confusion.
13. I will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal. It is reasonable to expect him to have appealed because the tribunal is free to use and is the appropriate body to consider PCNs disputes. The tribunal adjudicator could have considered Mr X’s submission that the information provided by the apps is misleading and inconsistent with the road signs. The tribunal has the power to cancel a PCN and its decision would reflect whether the adjudicator thought the app was wrong or misleading.
14. I also will not investigate this complaint because the Council has already made changes to the app and payment machine. It would not be a proportionate use of our resources to investigate a case where a council has already made procedural improvements. This applies even if Mr X is not wholly satisfied with the outcome. And, as I have said, he could have used his appeal rights.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal and because the Council has already provided a satisfactory response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman