The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that he was wrongly issued 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
Mr B says the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged parking contravention. Mr B says: he was unable to pay for parking by phone; the parking rules in this location were confusing; and, the penalty charge was disproportionate. Mr B would like the Council to refund the £40 he paid to cancel this PCN at the discounted rate.
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 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 Mr B.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Rather than pay this PCN, Mr B could have challenged it by putting in formal representations to the Council, and if needed, appealing to London Tribunals. This is the process set out in law for a motorist to challenge a PCN and we generally expect it to be used. It is the role of the Tribunal, which is independent, to decide whether a PCN was issued correctly.
I find it was reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal. So, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman