The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about two Penalty Charge Notices for moving traffic offences. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about two Penalty Charge Notices (PCN). He was unaware the roads had restrictions and says the Council should have accepted his appeals because the signs were new. Mr X would like a refund.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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 provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes Mr X’s appeals to the Council and the Council’s response. I considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
Mr X received two PCNs in 2021 for entering roads which were prohibited to cars. He challenged both fines. The Council rejected both challenges. On both occasions the Council explained why it would not cancel the PCN, gave Mr X another chance to pay at the discounted rate of £65, and told him he could appeal to the tribunal.
Mr X paid both fines at the discounted rate. The Council closed each case.
I will not start an investigation because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal if he thought either PCN had been incorrectly issued. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider disputes about PCNs. The tribunal has the power, if appropriate, to cancel a PCN – we do not have that power.
I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council sent all the documents it was required to send, explained the reasons for each PCN, gave Mr X another chance to pay at the discounted rate, and notified him of his appeal rights. There is no suggestion of fault and no reason to start an investigation.
Final decision
I will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman