The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.
The complaint
The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged parking contravention. Mr B says the contravention did not occur because his car was not parked in the zone where the restriction applies. Mr B says he had to borrow money to pay the PCN. Mr B would like the Council to review his case and reverse its decision.
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 Act 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 B.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
A motorist who receives a PCN has two options. The motorist may pay the PCN to cancel it. Alternatively, the motorist may challenge the PCN by making representations to the Council, and if needed, appealing to London Tribunals.
Mr B could have used this process to challenge the PCN. It is the role of the tribunal, not the Ombudsman, to decide such appeals. The tribunal would have considered whether the PCN was correctly issued.
The tribunal has the power to cancel the PCN.
I find it was reasonable for Mr B to use his statutory right of appeal to challenge this PCN. So, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman