Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice 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 a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. He says the matter has put unnecessary strain on his family and believes the Council should cancel the PCN.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

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

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council issued Mr X a PCN for a parking contravention in March 2019.
6. 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’.
7. 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.
8. If the motorist does not pay or make formal representations the council will issue a charge certificate, increasing the amount payable by 50%. It may then apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court to register the debt, before instructing enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover it.
9. Mr X disputes the PCN and suggests he informally challenged it at the initial stage of the process and made formal representations following the notice to owner. But the Council rejected his challenges and has now registered the unpaid PCN as a debt with the TEC. Mr X says it was not clear to him that he was not allowed to park on the pavement and he did not block the road or the pavement for others. He therefore believes the Council should cancel the PCN.
10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. If Mr X disputed the PCN it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals under the process set out above. London Tribunals is better placed to deal with challenges to PCNs and I have seen nothing to suggest it would not have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal.

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