The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to cancel a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Ms X to appeal to London Tribunals.
The complaint
The complainant, Ms X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. She says she paid for parking but input her vehicle registration number incorrectly and this should have provided grounds to cancel the PCN, however the Council has refused to do so.
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 has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (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 Ms 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.
Ms X informally challenged the PCN with the Council but it declined to cancel the PCN. If Ms X was unhappy with this it would have been reasonable for her to wait for the notice to owner. She could then have made formal representations to the Council and, if it still refused to cancel the PCN, she could have appealed to London Tribunals.
There is nothing to suggest it would not have been reasonable for Ms X to have appealed and I will not therefore exercise my discretion to investigate the matter.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Ms X to appeal to London Tribunals.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman