Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about two penalty charge notices issued by the Council for parking contraventions. The Council has refunded money paid by the complainant for one penalty charge notice. There is no evidence of any fault by the Council in its handling of the second. The complainant also had a right of appeal against each penalty charge notice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Ms C, has complained about two penalty charge notices issued by the Council for parking contraventions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. It says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’.
4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Ms C said in her complaint and background information provided by the Council. Ms C commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. The Council enforces the parking restrictions and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the Traffic Management Act 2004 and associated Regulations. The Council and motorists must follow these procedures although councils have discretion to stop enforcement or recovery action if they believe there are good reasons to do so.
7. Ms C had a right of appeal against each penalty charge notice to London Tribunals which is a statutory tribunal. An appeal to London Tribunals is free and relatively easy to use. It is also the way in which Parliament expects people to challenge a penalty charge notice. For these reasons, the restriction I describe in paragraph 2 generally applies.

First penalty charge notice – summary of events

8. The Council issued the first penalty charge notice in August 2019 because it believed Ms C had parked without displaying a valid resident’s permit. The Council removed Ms C’s car to a pound and she paid £330 to retrieve it; £130 penalty charge and £200 removal fee.
9. Ms C made representations to the Council and said she should, in any case, only have had to pay £265 because she paid the penalty charge within 14 days. The Council arranged a refund of £65.
10. Due to errors by the Council it did not respond to Ms C’s representations within 56 days. When it became aware of this, as a result of Ms C’s complaint to us, the Council cancelled the penalty charge notice and arranged a refund of the remaining £265. The Council repaid this in January 2020.

First penalty charge notice – analysis

11. If the Council had considered Ms C’s representations within 56 days, it is likely it would have rejected them. Ms C accepts she parked without displaying a permit. The Council should then have sent her a ‘notice of rejection of representations’ by early October 2019. This would have allowed Ms C to appeal to London Tribunals.
12. Had Ms C appealed, the adjudicator would have to consider any mitigating circumstances she put forward. If the adjudicator accepted these, they could only recommend the Council reconsider the matter within 35 days. They could not cancel the penalty charge. Only if the Council was then persuaded to cancel the penalty charge would Ms C receive a refund.
13. So, while the Council might have refunded money to Ms C slightly earlier, there is no certainty this would have been the case. For this reason, I do not consider any fault in how the Council dealt with Ms C’s representations caused her any significant injustice.

Second penalty charge notice – summary of events

14. The Council issued the second penalty charge notice in late September 2019 because it believed Ms C had parked without displaying a valid resident’s permit. The Council removed Ms C’s car to a pound and she paid £265 to retrieve it; £65 discounted penalty charge and £200 removal fee.
15. Ms C made no representations against the penalty charge notice within the statutory 28 day period although she was clearly aware she could do this.
16. As it had received a payment but no representations, the Council considered the matter closed.

Second penalty charge notice – analysis

17. Ms C had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice which I consider it was reasonable for her to have used. The restriction I describe in paragraph 2 therefore applies. There is nothing to suggest any other fault by the Council in this.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint for the reasons given in paragraphs 13 and 17.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman