Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to respond to the complainant’s representations against a penalty charge notice and the towing of her vehicle. This is because the complainant had a right of appeal to London Tribunals, and the refund provided by the Council at the earlier representation stage is the same outcome that would have been achieved if the appeal process had proceeded to a successful tribunal decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs B, says the Council failed to respond within 56 days to her representations against a penalty charge notice (PCN) and the associated removal of the vehicle

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.
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. London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
5. Finally, 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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• are satisfied with the actions a council has taken.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) and 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered:
• Mrs B’s complaint to the Ombudsman, and her email dated 2 January 2010;
• An update from the Council about its consideration of Mrs B’s representations against the PCN and the removal of the vehicle.
7. I also gave Mrs B the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of what happened

8. Mrs B had a hire vehicle, because her own car was at a garage being fixed. The hire vehicle was parked outside her property, but the wrong section of the visitors parking permit had been scratched off. The Council therefore issued a PCN, and Mrs B says the vehicle was towed away less than two hours later. Mrs B says the vehicle should not have been towed, because they had not been given enough time to act after the PCN was issued, and the vehicle was safely parked.
9. In order to recover the vehicle, Mrs B had to pay the £40 penalty charge plus a £200 release fee.
10. Mrs B submitted representations to the Council to challenge the PCN and the removal of the vehicle. As the Council did not respond within the statutory 56-day deadline, it refunded the £240.

Assessment

11. The restrictions detailed in paragraphs 2 to 5 above apply to Mrs B’s complaint.
12. She had a right of appeal to London Tribunals if she felt the Council should not have served the PCN or towed the vehicle, and she initiated that process by first submitting her representations to the Council. Although the Council failed to respond to the issues raised in Mrs B’s representation, it has ultimately provided the same outcome (£240 refund) that would have been achieved if the Council had accepted the representations, or if London Tribunals had upheld a subsequent appeal.
13. I therefore do not consider the Ombudsman should investigate Mrs B’s complaint, as the Council has already taken appropriate action.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint. This is because she had a right of appeal to London Tribunals, and the refund provided by the Council at the earlier representation stage is the same outcome that would have been achieved if the appeal process had proceeded to a successful tribunal decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman