Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a parking penalty charge notice as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council. In addition, the substantive injustice from the penalty charge notice is not sufficient to justify our further action.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council provided no support to him to assist him in challenging a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) it had issued to him. Mr X says this is a breach of his human rights. Mr X considers he would have won his appeal had the Council supported him in this process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 or fault causing a significant injustice, to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. On receipt of the PCN, Mr X wrote to the Council with a comprehensive case against it. Mr X also explained about his mental and physical health problems. Mr X asked the Council to provide him with an email address, so he could provide further evidence to support his case. The Council did this and Mr X sent several emails to it. Following this, when the Council asked Mr X if he had supplied all the evidence he had wanted to, in support of his challenge, Mr X confirmed that he had.
6. The Council considered Mr X’s challenge against the PCN but rejected it. It explained Mr X could pay the PCN, at the discounted rate of £25 or that he could continue to appeal the case. Mr X chose to pay the PCN.
7. Only the courts can determine if the Council breached Mr X’s human rights. However, from information the Council has supplied to me, Mr X was able to mount a challenge; was able to provide additional information using the email address the Council supplied to him, and the Council checked with Mr X before assessing his challenge whether he had provided all the information he wanted to in support of it. The Council sent Mr X a rejection letter explaining why it did not uphold his challenge. While I recognise Mr X remains dissatisfied, we will not investigate as it is unlikely we will find fault in the way the Council handled this matter.
8. In addition, Mr X paid £25 to clear the PCN. I do not consider it would be in the public interest for us to investigate this complaint based on this level of injustice. We have limited resources and must direct them to the most serious cases; this is not such a case.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault or of fault causing him a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman