The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice which the complainant says was issued when his vehicle was cloned. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The law provides a right of appeal to a tribunal against the penalty charge notice, and the complainant has already asked a court to restore that right.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has refused to cancel a penalty charge notice (PCN) which he says was issued for a parking contravention after his vehicle was cloned.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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.
The law further says we cannot investigate a complaint when someone has sought a remedy in court; we have no discretion in this. This restriction on our jurisdiction applies even if the court could not provide a complete remedy for all the claimed injustice. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included an update on the status of the witness statement Mr X has submitted to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC).
I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The issue and enforcement of parking penalties is a legal process governed by statute which sets out an established appeal process. The Ombudsman would expect a motorist to use that process to protect his or her rights.
Mr X has submitted a witness statement to the TEC on the basis that he did not receive the Notice to Owner/PCN. The TEC has notified the Council about Mr X’s submission, and the Council says it will reply in due course to confirm whether it will contest the case.
The restriction detailed in paragraph 5 above therefore applies to Mr X’s complaint because, by submitting a witness statement, he has already sought a remedy in court.
If the TEC accepts Mr X’s witness statement, it may take the appeal process back to an earlier stage, which will ultimately reinstate his right of appeal to London Tribunals. An appeal to London Tribunals is free and relatively easy to use. It is also the way in which Parliament expects people to challenge a penalty charge notice. For these reasons, the restriction I describe in paragraphs 3 and 4 above would also then apply to Mr X’s complaint.
Final decision
We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has already sought a remedy in court, by asking the TEC to restore his right of appeal to a statutory tribunal.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman