The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice appeal. This is because the complaint is closely linked to the appeal decided by the Tribunal. Further, the matter could have been resolved using the Tribunal’s own powers and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms Y is seeking.
The complaint
Ms Y complains the London Tribunals wrongly failed to list a case for an in-person hearing.
Ms Y says this meant she could not provide oral evidence, which she believes would have change the result of her appeal.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal.
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 Ms Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms Y has complained because of London Tribunals’ administrative error she could not give oral evidence to London Tribunals as part of an appeal hearing. Ms Y says this means the parking adjudicator did not consider the evidence she wanted to provide as part of her appeal. Ms Y says this led to her losing her appeal and had to pay the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) she was appealing, costing her £160. Ms Y says she is seeking a refund of the £160 paid and compensation for the time she has taken in dealing with the matter.
We cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been referred to it to resolve using its own powers.
In this case, Ms Y has complained to London Tribunals about the administrative error. It is her view that she would have been successful in her appeal had the error not occurred but London Tribunals disagrees. It was open to the tribunal to resolve the matter using its own powers to set its decision aside and re-hear the appeal if it thought that was justified, but we cannot question its decision not to.
If we were to investigate, we would need to consider Ms Y’s injustice. She says this is the wrong result of her appeal. For the Ombudsman to link any alleged fault to this injustice, we would need to decide the appeal too. In doing so, we would be overlapping with the role of the Tribunal, which we cannot do The courts also have said if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal. How the Tribunal considered the appeal is inherently connected to the appeal itself.
Our role, where we find fault, is to try to put a person back into the position they would have been in had the fault not occurred. Ms Y has told us she is seeking a payment of £160 for the amount she paid for the PCN and compensation to recognise the time she spent dealing with the issue. While Ms Y believes she would have won her appeal if she had a hearing, we cannot decide the parking adjudicator’s decision as being right or wrong so we could not recommend the result Ms Y is seeking.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because the complaint is closely linked to and would depend on the appeal the Tribunal has decided and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms Y is seeking.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman