The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice issued for a congestion charge zone contravention. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Authority considered the mitigating circumstances in the complainant’s formal representations, and we cannot investigate any parts of the complaint about its consideration of the appeal on statutory grounds.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Authority should have cancelled a penalty charge notice (PCN) he received for entering the congestion charge zone. He says the charging times are confusing and he was unaware he had breached the restrictions. Mr X says the PCN is causing him a high level of stress and is severely affecting his mental health, because he cannot afford to pay the penalty charge.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We can investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) In that regard, we consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) And we cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (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 the Authority and Mr X, which included its response to his formal representations, and the decision of London Tribunals on Mr X’s subsequent appeal.
I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
I appreciate it has been a distressing time for Mr X.
But, with reference to paragraphs 5 and 6 above, the Ombudsman has no power to investigate complaints concerning the Authority’s handling/consideration of formal representations made on any of the statutory grounds of appeal. After the Authority rejected Mr X’s representations, he appealed to London Tribunals, but it also rejected his challenge. This means we cannot investigate any parts of the complaint about matters which have been considered by the Tribunal.
And, with reference to paragraphs 3 and 4 above, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Authority considered the mitigating circumstances presented by Mr X to justify investigating this part of the complaint. The Authority considered what Mr X said and gave its reasons for rejecting his challenge.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Authority considered the mitigating circumstances presented in his formal representations. We also cannot investigate any parts of the complaint about its consideration of Mr X’s appeal on statutory grounds, as he used his right of appeal to London Tribunals.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman