Summary: Mr X says the Council failed to consider the evidence he provided as his informal challenge to a Penalty Charge Notice. The Ombudsman will not consider this complaint as Mr X can appeal the fine to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Also, we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions and it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to consider the evidence he provided as part of his informal challenge to a Penalty Charge Notice.
2. He says the Council should not have escalated the matter to enforcement agents. He wants the Council to reimburse him for the excess fees he had to pay. And to reconsider his information representations.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law 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)
4. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Mr X and discussed his complaint with him. He had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In July, Mr X received a penalty charge notice (PCN) for overstaying in a parking space.
7. He challenged the PCN explaining that his partner had taken part in a foot race and was suffering from heat exhaustion when she reached the finish line. He said looking after her caused him to overstay. In March the Council asked him for evidence to support his representation that his partner had been medically treated. It advised the information must be provided within 14 days.
8. Mr X sent an email explaining that his partner had not required hospitalisation. He said he had sought medical advice from his father, a doctor, over the telephone. And that his father would provide a letter confirming this if required.
9. The Council sent Mr X a rejection of his representations. It stated that it had considered his representations received in March. It also said he had not provided the evidence it had requested. The rejection letter gave full details of how to appeal to the traffic Penalty Tribunal if he disagreed with the decision.
10. Mr X says because the letter does not refer to the information he sent explaining he had sought medical advice from his father, he thought the Council ‘had its wires crossed’. He says he decided to wait until the Council contacted him again rather than following the instructions on how to appeal.

Assessment

11. A complaint about the PCN is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because Mr X had a right of appeal to the parking adjudicator (see paragraph 3 and 4 above).
12. I have considered whether it would be unreasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed. I understand he considers the Council has not followed the correct process because it’s notice of rejection says it had not received any information from him further to his original representations. However, the notice also includes confirmation the Council had not received the medical evidence it had asked for. It also provided details of the correct process on how to appeal against the decision. I consider it unlikely that further investigation will find fault in the Council’s actions or lead to a different outcome.
13. Under the circumstances I consider it reasonable for Mr X to have used his right of appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable to expect him to have used his right of appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. And it is unlikely we will find fault in the Council’s action. Or that an investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman