Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s interpretation of parking restrictions. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal against the penalty charge notice issued by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s interpretation of The County of Somerset Prohibition and Restriction of Stopping, Waiting, Loading and Unloading and On-Street Parking Taunton Deane Order 2012. As a result of its interpretation of the Order the Council has issued Mr X a penalty charge notice (PCN) and Mr X says he now has to pay to park elsewhere.

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. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X believes he can park for free without restriction on an area of land parallel to the public highway. He says he has been parking there for years without issue, however the Council issued him PCNs for parking on the land in November and 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 the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
9. Mr X informally challenged the first PCN and the Council accepted his challenge and cancelled the PCN. He then challenged the second PCN but the Council refused to cancel it. He therefore paid it at the discounted rate of £35. He complained to the Council and it explained in response that although the land was not part of the road itself, parking restrictions still applied. Mr X disputes this but he has now decided to pay to park elsewhere to avoid any further PCNs.
10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Whether the Council is correct in its interpretation of the 2012 Order is a matter for the Traffic Penalty Tribunal to consider as part of an appeal. It is not for the Ombudsman to carry out our own interpretation of the Order or to reach a view on whether the PCN is valid.
11. The Council has clearly explained to Mr X that its parking restrictions apply to the land and if Mr X wishes to challenge this it would have been reasonable for him to wait for the notice to owner, make formal representations against the PCN and appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman