The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged moving traffic contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.
The complaint
Mr B complains the Council issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged moving traffic contravention. Mr B says the signage was not clear at the time of the contravention and did not meet government guidance. Mr B says the Council accepted it was at fault because it has now changed these signs to make the restriction clear to motorists. Mr B would like the Council to reimburse the £80 he paid to cancel this PCN.
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
A motorist may pay a PCN to cancel it. Or, the motorist may follow the statutory representations and appeals process to challenge a PCN. This involves the motorist making formal representations to the local authority. If the local authority rejects these representations, the motorist may put in an appeal to London Tribunals (for authorities in London). A motorist cannot pay a PCN and use this appeal process.
The Tribunal is independent and has the power to cancel a PCN. The process is free to use and relatively straightforward. We generally expect motorists to use this process if they consider a PCN was wrongly issued.
Mr B paid this PCN which cancelled it. The Council accepts it has recently changed the signage in this location but says the signage at the time of the contravention met relevant guidance.
Rather than pay this PCN, Mr B could have challenged it by using this representations and appeal process. I find it was reasonable for Mr B to do this.
The Tribunal was in the best position to decide if this PCN was correctly issued by the Council including consideration of Mr B’s concerns about the signage in this location.
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