A residents claim that the council ‘targeted him’ with a parking fine has been thrown out by the Local Government Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman said it had decided not to investigate a complaint that a civil enforcement officer from Westmorland and Furness Council gave a man referred to only as Mr X by the ombudsman, a penalty charge notice but not the man’s neighbour.
The Ombudsman has said its role and powers are to investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which they call ‘fault’. They must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which they call ‘injustice’.
According to the investigator’s report, the council issued Mr X a penalty charge notice for overstaying the maximum time in an on-street parking bay in November 2023.
The complaint against the council by Mr X claims his neighbour stayed in the adjacent parking bay for the same time period but did not receive a penalty charge notice.
The Local Government Ombudsman report on the decision states: “Mr X complains the council issued him a penalty charge notice but did not issue one to his neighbour, who committed the same contravention.” Leading to Mr X believing “the council targeted him.”
Mr X admitted in his complaint that he parked in a parking bay which allowed a maximum 20-minute stay but he was there for at least 33 minutes. The Ombudsman said “The council was therefore entitled to issue him a penalty charge notice”.
Local Government Ombudsman said that Mr X’s complaint comes down to the fact the council issued him a penalty charge notice but did not issue one to his neighbour, whom he says was parked in an adjacent bay for the same period of time. He therefore believes the council ‘targeted him specifically’.
The report states: “If Mr X disputed the penalty charge notice he received it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.” to Westmorland and Furness Council.
“It is not a significant injustice to Mr X that the council’s civil enforcement officer did not issue his neighbour a penalty charge notice, regardless of whether they committed the same contravention, and we would not recommend the council cancels the penalty charge notice it issued him simply because it did not issue a penalty charge notice to someone else.”
Mr X provided the Local Government Ombudsman video from a CCTV camera which he believes proves the council’s civil enforcement officer targeted him but the investigator states: “I cannot draw this assumption from the footage provided.”
Local Government Ombudsman concluded that the video shows the civil enforcement officer taking steps to issue a penalty charge notice to a vehicle which exceeded the maximum parking time allowed.”
The Local Government Ombudsman investigator added “It does not show intent to target him specifically and the council has confirmed from its records that the CEO issued PCNs to at least three other vehicles parked on the same road that morning.”
“We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X’s injustice stems from the penalty charge notice he received and if he disputed this it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.”
“The fact the CEO did not issue Mr X’s neighbour a penalty charge notice as well is not a significant injustice to Mr X and does not show fault in the parking enforcement process.”
The Ombudsman also dismissed a second complaint by another individual who had complaint the council had refused a request to provide a loading bay outside a business premises.
The Council said it had considered the request to create a loading bay outside the business premises, but could not agree to amend the existing layout at this time. It explained the reasons for its decision which included:
The business premises has been located there for many years with the existing layout in place.
There had been no expressed concerns about deliveries in the area or any indication of any incidents or issues previously.
The pavement is shared use between pedestrians and cyclists and there is an expectation of increased use by cyclists over time.
The Council added that it may be possible to consider provision of a loading bay in a different location in the future, but this would need to be part of wider decision making by Council members as part of wider priorities for the area.
The Ombudsman said “We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. Councils have discretion to decide whether to implement amendments to the highways in their area. The Council has appropriately considered Mr X’s request but decided it will not agree to it. It has advised Mr X of the reasons for its decision.”
“Mr X disagrees with the decision but there is no requirement for a council to implement every resident request. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision and so we cannot question the decision made.”
Then select "Add to Home Screen"
