Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council issuing the complainant a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention. This is because the complainant appealed to a statutory tribunal and as such we have no legal jurisdiction over the issue. We will not investigate the other part of the complaint with respect to the Council’s enforcement process. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr Q) complains the Council wrongly issued him a penalty charge notice for an alledged parking contravention. He further states the Council unjustly pursued the charges by taking enforcement action without having due regard to his disabilities, resulting in him paying these under duress.
2. In summary, Mr Q says the alledged fault caused him financial loss of approximately £500 due to paying the amounts demanded under duress. He also says the Council caused him significant distress and anxiety. As a desired outcome, he wants the Council to refund the amount he paid to satisfy the PCN and provide a compensatory payment for the impact the alleged fault had on him. He also wants the Council to apologise and improve its policies and procedures.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
4. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I cannot not investigate this complaint in relation to the PCN. This is because Mr Q had a right of appeal to a tribunal against the Council issuing him this which he subsequently exercised. If he wished to dispute this on the grounds of his health and/or disability, he reasonably could have raised these issues during the appeal proceedings. I have no legal jurisdiction to investigate this issue.
7. I do have jurisdiction to consider how the Council has conducted enforcement action. However, that Mr Q has a health condition or disability does not negate the Council’s entitlement to take enforcement action to recover a legal debt. I recognise Mr Q says the Council has failed to consider his needs during the enforcement process. However, I see no evidence of Mr Q requesting any specific changes to the enforcement process which, as I understand, is limited to it seeking recovery of the unpaid charges. If Mr Q wants adjustments to be made, he should set out what specific changes he would find helpful. However, such changes cannot extend to the Council ceasing enforcement action as it is legally entitled to do so.
8. I also note Mr Q complains he has not received letters sent to him in respect of the enforcement of the debt. The evidence shows the Council having issued many letters to Mr Q relating to enforcement of the debt. I am satisfied on the evidence that the existence of these letters means, on the balance of probabilities, these would reasonably have been received by him. I have also found no evidence to substantiate Mr Q’s claim an enforcement officer declined to show Mr Q any documentation or ID when making a visit to his address.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I cannot investigate the complaint relating to the Council issuing the complainant a PCN as I have no legal jurisdiction over the issue. With respect to the enforcement process, I will not investigate as there is insufficient evidence of fault and the complaint lacks merit.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman