The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it is reasonable for him to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.
The complaint
Mr B complains the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged parking contravention. Mr B says his vehicle was not causing an obstruction or creating a hazard.
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
The Council has rejected Mr B’s informal representations in response to this PCN. As advised by the Council, Mr B may now pursue this matter by waiting for the Council to send him a Notice to Owner and then putting in formal representations. If the Council rejects Mr B’s formal representations, he may put in an appeal to London Tribunals.
This is the statutory process for challenging a PCN and we generally expect it to be used. The Tribunal is independent and has the power to cancel a PCN. Also, the process is free and relatively straightforward.
I find it is reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to London Tribunals. So, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman