Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about three penalty charge notices issued by the Council. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about three penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by the Council. He claims financial loss as a result of the PCNs.

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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, shared my draft decision with him and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council issued Mr X three PCNs for moving traffic contraventions in September 2019.
7. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for moving traffic contraventions. When a council identifies a contravention it will issue a PCN to the owner/registered keeper by post. This will detail the amount of the fine and the motorist’s right of appeal, firstly to the council itself and then to a Tribunal.
8. The motorist has 28 days from the date of the notice to pay the penalty charge or make representations against it. For the first 14 days after the PCN the motorist may pay at a discounted rate of 50% of the full fine.
9. Mr X complains the Council’s signs and road markings are insufficient to warn of the restriction on use of the road. He wants the Council to stop issuing PCNs or improve its signs but says he will pay the PCNs to avoid further escalation.
10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. It is not for us to decide whether the Council’s road signs and markings are sufficient to warn motorists about a restriction on use of the road. If Mr X felt the signs were not sufficient it would have been reasonable for him to appeal against the PCNs under the process set out above. In the event London Tribunals found in his favour, the Council may then have decided to alter its signs.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman