The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the London Tribunals.
The complaint
Mr Y complains the Council is refusing to accept that he has already paid a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). It says the payment he has made is for a different PCN. Mr Y is frustrated and does not want to pay the PCN twice.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued a PCN to Mr Y in September 2021. Mr Y says he paid the PCN, costing him £65, in October. He says he has bank statements showing the payment was processed. However, Mr Y then received further letters to say the PCN remained unpaid. He complained to the Council in November. The Council responded, saying Mr Y had not paid the PCN and the payment he did make was for a different PCN. It referred him to his right to appeal to the London Tribunals. Mr Y then contacted us in January 2022.
Analysis Mr Y has the right to appeal to the London Tribunals. The London Tribunals is set up to consider parking and moving traffic offences for London. He can provide the evidence of the payments to the tribunal to show he has paid the PCN previously. The tribunal’s service is often free in the initial stages and reasonable adjustments can be made where necessary for access to the service. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to use his right to appeal. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to appeal to the London Tribunals.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman