The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking penalty charge notices as it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have followed the appeal process provided in law to challenge them.
The complaint
Ms X complains about two penalty charge notice (PCNs) the Council issued to her after she parked in a suspended parking bay. Ms X feels the PCNs were unfairly issued as she says there was inadequate notice of the suspension. Ms X wants the PCNs to be cancelled and for her other costs to be paid.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) We 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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Parliament has provided an appeal process, ultimately to independent adjudicators at London Tribunal, that Ms X could have used to challenge the PCNs issued to her. It is reasonable to expect her to have followed this procedure and we are not empowered to cancel the PCNs. As such, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is a statutory appeal process she could have reasonably used to challenge the PCNs.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman