Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about two penalty charge notices issued by the Council. This is because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains about two penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by the Council. Her father, Mr Y, says they have caused her 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 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.

(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 Miss X’s complaint, registered by Mr Y on her behalf, and the Council’s response to his challenge to the PCN. I shared my draft decision with Mr Y and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council issued Miss X two PCNs in December 2019. Miss X disputes the PCNs as she believes the Council was at fault for recording her vehicle registration mark incorrectly.
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 Y tried to contact the Council to discuss the PCNs over the Christmas period but says he was unable to speak with anyone. Miss X informally challenged the PCNs but the Council rejected her challenges. A member of the family then paid the PCNs at the discounted rate. Mr Y wrote to the Council to complain and is unhappy the Council responded to Miss X directly when he asked them not to.
10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. If Miss X disputed the PCNs issued by the Council it would have been reasonable for her to follow the statutory process set out above. Miss X challenged the PCNs at the first stage of the process but as they have now been paid she cannot make formal representations or appeal to London Tribunals. This is not the result of any fault by the Council.
11. While Mr X is unhappy the Council wrote to Miss X despite his instructions not to, this is not an issue we would investigate in isolation. The response provided is a formal response to Miss X’s challenge and simply issuing this response has not caused Miss X significant injustice for which we would recommend a remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman