The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for the complainant to have used their right to appeal with the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued to her. She states the PCN should not have been issued, wants it withdrawn, and a refund of the money she paid.
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 provided by Mr X and Mrs X.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for moving traffic contraventions. It will issue a PCN to the owner/registered keeper by post. This will detail the amount of the fine and the motorist’s right of appeal, firstly to the Council itself and then to a Tribunal.
A PCN was sent to Mrs X, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, for a bus lane contravention. Mr X was the driver at the time. In their view, the notice was intimidating with misleading evidence shown, which pressured Mrs X into paying it without consulting Mr X. Mrs X states she saw no grounds for challenging it based on the evidence shown.
As Mrs X was the recipient of the PCN; it was for her, as the owner of the vehicle, to decide whether to pay it, or to challenge it using the appeal process available to her.
We will not investigate this complaint. In Mrs X’s view, it was unreasonable for her to have used the right of appeal. This is because the evidence the Council presented was misleading and selective, and it was only when Mr X checked it that this became clear. It was, however, Mrs X’s decision to pay the charge without asking the driver to check the evidence. It was that decision that deprived her of the right to appeal, not the evidence the Council presented. We therefore find it would have been reasonable for her to appeal.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because it is reasonable for the complainant to have used their right of appeal to challenge the PCN.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman