Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in dealing with his information challenge to a penalty charge notice. This is because the delay did not cause him significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council took too long to respond to his challenge to a penalty charge notice (PCN). He says this has caused him stress and anxiety.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. 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)
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, made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council issued Mr X a PCN for a parking contravention in September 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 informally challenged the PCN on 13 September 2019 but he did not receive a response for several months. He believed this meant he won the challenge by default but the Council wrote to him in January 2020 refusing to cancel the PCN. It explained he could pay the PCN at the original discounted rate or wait for the notice to owner and make formal representations. Mr X paid the PCN but believes the Council has acted wrongly in taking four months to deal with his informal challenge.
10. The statutory appeals process does not set a timeframe for dealing with informal challenges to PCNs but we consider councils should respond without unreasonable delay; we would normally say a period of four to six weeks is acceptable.
11. The Council did not respond in this case for more than four months but this did not cause Mr X significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation. The Council apologised to Mr X for its delay and it was under no obligation to cancel the PCN; it is therefore unlikely we would recommend any further remedy.
12. Mr X seems to accept the contravention and he has now paid the PCN; if he had wanted to challenge it, it would have been reasonable for him to wait for the notice to owner and appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s apology provides a suitable remedy for its delay.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman