Summary: Mr X complains the Council denied him the right to appeal against a moving traffic penalty it issued to him. Mr X says he missed out on seeking compensation from the independent adjudicator because of this. We will not investigate as the Council cancelled the penalty and the remaining injustice to Mr X is not sufficient to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council denied him the right to appeal against a moving traffic penalty it issued to him. Mr X says he missed out on seeking compensation from the independent adjudicator because of this.

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 the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered what Mr X said in his complaint and sent him my draft decision on it for his comments. I have considered the comments Mr X made in response before reaching this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council say Mr X, an overseas resident who was driving a UK registered hire car in London, committed a moving traffic contravention by making a prohibited left turn. The Council issued a penalty charge notice to the hire car company and then transferred liability for the penalty to Mr X. The Council passed the case to a company (company Y) which it uses to collect debts in foreign countries.
6. Mr X made representations against the penalty to Company Y. It rejected these and issued a Notice of Rejection to Mr Y. It did not tell Mr X of his right of appeal against the penalty to the independent adjudicator, London Tribunals.
7. Mr X complained to the Council about this. The Council acknowledged it was an error that Mr X was not told about his appeal right and said it would address this with Company Y going forward. The Council said the error may have arisen as Company Y normally deals with vehicles not registered in the UK but being driven in the UK and that different processes apply for foreign registered vehicles. The Council cancelled the penalty in recognition of the error.
8. Mr X complained to us as he is not happy that the Council cancelled the penalty. Mr X wanted the Council to properly issue him with a Notice of Rejection, and a Notice of an Appeal, so that he could appeal to London Tribunals. Mr X says had he been allowed to do this, he would have also submitted a claim for costs to the Tribunal due to him having received various demands for payment and after his attempts to make representation had been ignored. Mr X feels the Tribunal would have made a costs award due to the Council’s failure to follow the statutory process and its failure to allow Mr X to appeal.
9. Mr X also remains unhappy about what the Council has told him about how it deals with cases involving foreign registered vehicles as Mr X feels the Council has wrongly interpreted the law. Mr X is concerned motorists driving foreign registered vehicles are being denied their appeal rights.
10. Mr X wants to be allowed to appeal and for the Council to change its processes so that motorists are properly informed of their appeal rights.
11. London Tribunals, on its website, says that it very rarely makes awards to appellants for their costs and expenses incurred from making an appeal. It also says it has no power to award compensation for any distress arising from a person having been issued with a penalty.

Analysis

12. This complaint has been satisfactorily remedied by the Council cancelling the penalty and there is insufficient remaining injustice to Mr X to warrant our investigating this complaint. I do not consider Mr X is significantly affected by not being allowed to appeal. Mr X incurred no appeal costs and the Tribunal’s website confirms that it can award no other compensatory payment. Mr X did experience some inconvenience in dealing with this matter, but this is to be expected, and is not at a level to warrant an investigation by us.
13. While there appears to have been some delay in the Council responding to Mr X’s complaint, the injustice caused to Mr X from this is not at a level that would warrant our further involvement.
14. Mr X is not caused injustice indirectly from the Council’s policy in respect of how it deals with penalties incurred by motorists driving vehicles registered outside of the UK. In addition, this is not a matter we would wish to investigate on public interest grounds as currently there is no indication of it being a widespread issue.
15. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

16. My decision is we will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient remaining injustice caused to Mr X to warrant our further involvement. This is also not a case we would take forward on public interest grounds.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman