The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the enforcement of a Penalty Charge Notice. X has already used their appeal rights; to challenge the notice and the law does not allow us to consider it. X also complained saying the Council was wrong to continue to issue notices for the same location. I will not investigate this part of the complaint, because there is no significant personal injustice to X, caused by the Council’s actions here.
The complaint
X says the Council failed to follow the correct procedure for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and denied them their right to appeal against it. They say the matter wrongly progressed through the enforcement procedure.
X also said the Council was wrong to continue to issue PCN’s to other motorists, for this location, because X has information to show the road markings are defective.
X wants the PCN fees returned, and for the Council to stop any enforcement action at this location.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916) London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the rest of England. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), part of the county court, considers applications to set the PCN process back where there has been procedural fault.
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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued X with a PCN. X said the Council was wrong to have bypassed the Tribunal stage and disregarded their formal representations. I cannot investigate this part of X’s complaint, because of the law at paragraph four. X has already used their appeal right to ask the TEC, to revert the process back to an earlier stage in the procedure, to allow them to appeal the matter with the Tribunal.
X says the PCN should not have been issued as road markings are defective. They want their PCN fees returned. Again, because of the law at paragraph four, I cannot consider this aspect. X has used the statutory representations and appeal procedure and only the Tribunal can say a PCN is invalid.
Finally, X said, they have provided the Council with information that road markings are defective on that stretch of road, and they believe the Council is at fault by continuing to enforce against other motorists.
X has already used their appeal rights to challenge their personal injustice, where the Council issued them with a PCN. They cannot also claim an injustice on behalf of others. Therefore, I will not investigate the Councils actions relating to the road markings.
Final decision
We cannot investigate most of this complaint because the complainant has used their appeal rights. Nor will we investigate the remaining parts because there is no personal injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman