Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Other Reference 22-006-978 Sector Transport And Highways Category Parking And Other Penalties Decided 11 September 2022

View Richmond upon Thames Council scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

The complaint

The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains he received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) because the Ringo payment system would not work. He says he was forced into paying the fine because the Council threatened to increase it. He wants a refund and for the Council to take responsibility for the failings of Ringo.

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 considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

How I considered this complaint

I considered information provided by Mr X. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

My assessment

The law says that if someone pays a PCN promptly the fine is reduced by 50%. If someone wishes to challenge a PCN they can appeal to the tribunal. If they win the PCN is cancelled. If they lose they must pay at the standard rate. This forms part of a statutory process and is not a council policy.

Mr X tried to pay for his parking using Ringo but could not get the system to work. The Council issued a PCN because Mr X parked without displaying a permit or paying for parking. The fine was £110.

Mr X challenged the PCN and explained the problems he had trying to pay. The Council rejected his challenge. The Council gave Mr X another opportunity to pay at the discounted rate of £55. Alternatively, the Council said Mr X could wait for the Notice to Owner and then make a formal challenge. If that challenge was rejected the Council said Mr X could appeal to the adjudicator (tribunal).

Mr X paid the fine at the discounted rate but still wishes to dispute it and complain about the payment system.

I will not investigate this complaint because, if Mr X wanted to continue to dispute the fine, he could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider appeals about PCNs. But, because Mr X chose to pay, the process has ended. In addition, the Council notified Mr X of his appeal rights and the tribunal would have decided if the Council was correct to have issued the PCN. If appropriate, the tribunal has the power to cancel a PCN – we do not have that power.

Mr X says the Council forced him to pay by threatening to increase the fine to £110. However, the Council correctly informed him of his options and of the statutory process.

Final decision

We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-012-512 Other
25-022-433 Other
25-021-505 Other
25-010-305 Other
25-002-750 Upheld
View all decisions for this organisation