Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. This is because it would have been reasonable for Ms X to appeal and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms X’s informal challenge.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. She has paid the PCN at the reduced rate of £55 but would like the Council to refund her money.

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, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(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 Ms X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. 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 a parking contravention in late 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. Ms X informally challenged the PCN and paid it at the discounted rate before receiving the Council’s response. She said that other vehicles park in the same location and are not issued PCNs, and complained the Council had no signs to warn of the parking restriction. Although Ms X had paid the PCN the Council considered her challenge but found no grounds to cancel the PCN. Ms X complains about this decision.
10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. If Ms X disputed the PCN it would have been reasonable for her to appeal under the process set out above. She chose instead to pay the PCN and this meant she could not appeal to London Tribunals. But this was her choice and not the result of any fault by the Council. The Council considered Ms X’s comments but decided not to cancel the PCN and this was a decision it was entitled to make. I will not therefore exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Ms X to appeal against the PCN.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman