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

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council issued her two penalty charge notices (PCNs) despite having a valid paperless parking permit. She says she cannot afford to pay and the issue is affecting her mental health.

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 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 and the Council’s notice of rejection of her informal challenge to the PCN. I shared my draft decision with Miss X and invited her comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council issued Miss X a PCN for a parking contravention in December 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. Miss X informally challenged at least one of the PCNs but the Council refused her challenge. It confirmed there was no permit registered under her vehicle registration mark (VRM) and that the permit referred to was for a different VRM which is very similar to her own. Miss X says this cannot be the case as otherwise she would have received far more PCNs. She says she does not understand and refuses to pay the PCNs.
10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. It does appear there was an error with Miss X’s parking permit application but it would be reasonable for Miss X to appeal further against the PCN on this basis. The fact the Council has only issued two PCNs is not evidence that the permit is correctly registered to her vehicle as councils will not always enforce on a daily or weekly basis.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Miss X to appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman