The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. This is because it would have been reasonable for her to appeal to London Tribunals.
The complaint
The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council wrongly issued her a penalty charge notice (PCN). She also says the Council has failed to respond to her complaints about the matter.
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.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them. When a council issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal; appeals at this stage are known as ‘informal challenges’.
If the motorist submits an informal challenge to a PCN and the Council decides not to accept them, it will write to the motorist and explain why. If the motorist accepts the Council’s reasons they may pay the PCN; if not, they may wait for a ‘notice to owner’. This provides a further opportunity for the owner of the vehicle to pay the charge or make ‘formal representations’ against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to London Tribunals.
Mrs X has provided evidence to show she informally challenged the PCN and that the Council rejected her challenge. Had she wished to challenge the PCN further it would have been reasonable for her to follow the process set out above and appeal to London Tribunals. It is not for the complaints process or for us to provide an alternative means of challenge to the PCN outside of this statutory process.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to London Tribunals.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman