Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about two penalty charge notices issued by the Council as it would have been reasonable for him to appeal. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council damaged his vehicle as it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about two penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by the Council which he has now paid. He also says the Council damaged his car when moving it to carry out repairs to the road.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X complains about two separate but related issues. He says the Council damaged his car when moving it from one side of the road to the other to carry out repairs and that it issued him two PCNs for parking contraventions on the same day.
8. The Council disputes Mr X’s claim that it damaged his car and says its contractors would be responsible if the claim could be proven; it suggested Mr X contact the contractors if he wishes to pursue the matter. It says the PCNs were issued more than 24 hours apart on consecutive days for the same contravention as is standard practice.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. If Mr X believes the Council is responsible for damage to his vehicle it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court. The Council disputes liability for the damage and the courts are better placed to decide who is responsible.
10. I have seen nothing to suggest the Council issued the two PCNs on the same day but if Mr X disputed them, and whatever the reason for this, it would have been reasonable for him to appeal. The appeals process deals specifically with disputes about PCNs and if Mr X was not happy with the Council’s response he may have referred the matter to London Tribunals, an independent body better placed to deal with the issue.

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 against the PCNs issued by the Council and to take his claim for damage to his vehicle to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman