Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s issue of two penalty charge notices and its refusal to accept his representations against them. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly issued him two penalty charge notices (PCNs) and refused his representations against them. He appealed to London Tribunals who ordered the Council to pay his costs but he says that having to collect evidence for his appeal with guarantee he would win caused him stress and resulted in him losing sleep.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right but cannot investigate if they have already used it. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Because Mr X has appealed against the PCNs we cannot investigate any complaint about their issue or the Council’s handling of his representations against them. We cannot therefore provide Mr X a remedy for his stress or the time and trouble he went to, to dispute the PCNs.
8. Mr X’s appeal raised concerns about signs which he says are still in place despite being judged inadequate by the Adjudicator at London Tribunals. But the continued presence of the signs does not directly or significantly affect him and there is not enough public interest to investigate the issue further.
9. The Adjudicator’s decision suggests the time of year was relevant along with issues concerning visibility that would not necessarily be the case year-round. They decided the appeal on the facts of Mr X’s case and the decision does not create a precedent. If anyone else is issued a PCN and believes the signage is inadequate they too would have the right to appeal and they may draw attention to Mr X’s case as part of their appeal.
10. The Council is aware of the Adjudicator’s views and until such time as it takes action to address their concerns it is aware of the possibility it will lose further appeals and have costs awarded against it. It is therefore for the Council to consider the Adjudicator’s comments and take any action it sees fit to address their concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman