Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. This is because Ms X has appealed to London Tribunals and it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. She has paid £130 to settle the PCN and avoid further increases in cost.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. 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, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal but cannot investigate if the person has already appealed. (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 Ms X’s complaint, made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I shared my draft decision with Ms X and considered her comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council issued Ms X a PCN for stopping in a yellow box junction 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. Ms X made representations against the PCN but the Council did not accept them. She then appealed to London Tribunals on the grounds the contravention did not occur. The Adjudicator considered the appeal but was satisfied the PCN had been properly issued; he therefore refused to cancel the PCN. Ms X paid the PCN at the full rate of £130 and complained to the Council, but she was not happy with its response.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Because Ms X has appealed against the PCN we have no jurisdiction to investigate any complaint about its issue. However, even if we were to consider the appeal misconceived it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. The PCN itself shows evidence of Ms X’s vehicle stopped in a yellow box junction and the Council’s response to her representations shows it considered the points she had raised. It did not cancel the PCN but it was under no duty to do so and it is unlikely we would find fault in its decision.
10. While Mr X is also unhappy about the way the Council has dealt with his complaint, the courts have said that where we cannot investigate a complaint about the main or underlying issue, we cannot normally investigate related issues either. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration in England [2006] EWHC 2847 (Admin)). So, where the substance of a complaint is not subject to investigation, the Ombudsman does not investigate the Council’s handling of the issue in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Ms X has appealed against the PCN issued by the Council and it is unlikely we would find fault in its handling of the case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman