Westminster City Council

Summary

We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). Mrs X obtained a remedy through the Traffic Enforcement Centre, so we cannot investigate that part of the complaint. We will not investigate the remaining issues because we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

The complaint

Mr Y complained on behalf of Mrs X about how the Council handled Mrs X’s application for a parking permit. He says the Council’s faults meant the Council wrongly issued PCN’s to Mrs X. He wants the Council to pay for the additional costs Mrs X incurred.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.

We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) 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 and the Council.

I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

Mrs X applied for a parking permit. She believed this permit was in place when she parked in a designated space.

The Council issued four PCNs to Mrs X. She said it did not respond to her representations. Mrs X used her right to make a witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). The grounds for that process includes where a motorist made representations but did not receive a response, and where they did not receive notification of the PCN. We cannot investigate this part of the complaint because Mrs X used her right of appeal at Court.

Mrs X used a different email address to apply for the new parking permit than one she used for previous permit applications. Mr Y believed the Council should have linked the two accounts together and recognised it was the same person that applied for a new parking permit. He said that would have meant the Council would not have issued the PCNs.

The validity of the PCNs is a matter for the statutory representations and appeals process rather than the Ombudsman. 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.

London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the rest of England.

In any case, the Council cancelled the PCNs. I understand Mr X wants the Council to pay for the legal costs Mrs X incurred. However, it was Mrs X’s personal choice to obtain legal assistance rather than a requirement of the TEC process. The Ombudsman would not normally recommend reimbursement of legal costs or other consequential expenses arising from PCN enforcement matters. We therefore cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y and Mrs X want.

Final decision

We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she has already sought a remedy through a Court of law. We cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants for the remaining matters.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman