Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s issue of a penalty charge notice. If Mr X is the owner of the vehicle it would have been reasonable for him to appeal. If he is not, his claimed injustice is not the direct result of any fault by the Council. It is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome in this case.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council.

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. 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 considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council issued Mr X a PCN for a parking contravention in December 2019.
7. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them. When a council issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal; appeals at this stage are known as ‘informal challenges’.
8. If the motorist submits an informal challenge to a PCN and the Council decides not to accept them, it will write to the motorist and explain why. If the motorist accepts the Council’s reasons they may pay the PCN; if not, they may wait for a ‘notice to owner’. This provides a further opportunity for the owner of the vehicle to pay the charge or make ‘formal representations’ against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to London Tribunals.
9. Mr X disputes the contravention and sent the Council a copy of his parking ticket with his informal challenge, but the Council rejected it. Mr X paid the PCN at this stage and complained to the Ombudsman.
10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. If Mr X is not the owner of the vehicle then any injustice he may claim from the issue of the PCN is indirect. This is because it stems from his agreement with, or sense of obligation to, the true owner. We could not therefore say the PCN, whether properly issued or not, directly affects him.
11. If Mr X is the owner of the vehicle then it would have been reasonable for him to wait for the notice to owner and make formal representations under the process set out above. If the Council refused Mr X’s representations he could then have appealed to London Tribunals. This is the process set out in law for challenging PCNs and I have seen nothing to suggest it would not have been reasonable for him to follow it in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for the owner of the vehicle to appeal against the PCN and if Mr X is not the owner his injustice is not the direct result of any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman