The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to make representations to the Council and appeal to London Tribunals.
The complaint
Mr X complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council, which it refused to cancel despite his claims that his vehicle was cloned.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) 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 Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Final decision
We cannot investigate this complaint. This is because the validity of the PCN was a matter for the appeals process and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to challenge it with London Tribunals. In any event, the Council has now agreed to cancel the PCN and it is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for Mr X.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman