Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate the Tribunals’ decision on Mr X’s appeal against penalty charge notices. This is because the Ombudsman cannot question the Tribunals’ appeal decisions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains an adjudicator at London Tribunals did not properly consider his appeals against two penalty charge notices (PCNs). Mr X also complains London Tribunals failed to tell him about the review process and did not give him time to present his appeal properly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. Adjudicators at London Tribunals act in a quasi-judicial way and their decisions can only be challenged in the high court by judicial review.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have considered the complaint and Mr X's comments.
5. Mr X and the Tribunal had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X appealed two penalty charge notices. An adjudicator from London Tribunals considered the case. The adjudicator upheld one appeal and dismissed the second. Mr X says London Tribunals did not tell him about his right to seek a review of the decision. Mr X put in a review request though which the chief adjudicator considered. The chief adjudicator decided the adjudicator had given each application proper and proportionate scrutiny and Mr X had received an opportunity to put his case thoroughly.

Analysis

7. Mr X’s main concern is London Tribunals failed to properly consider his case for appeal. Mr X says London Tribunals failed to consider the points he put forward in support of his appeal, took into account mistaken information and failed to consider the impact of Covid-19 when reaching its decision. We cannot question PCN appeal decisions made by London Tribunals. They can only be challenged in the high court by judicial review. The Ombudsman therefore does not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint about the merits of the decision to refuse Mr X’s appeal or any concerns about the information the adjudicator did or did not consider when deciding the appeal.
8. We sent Mr X a draft decision on that basis. In response Mr X raised further concerns about the administrative process followed by London Tribunals. In particular Mr X says London Tribunals did not tell him about his right to seek a review of the decision. I am satisfied though Mr X carried out his own research which identified the possibility of seeking a review. I am therefore satisfied failure to tell Mr X about the review process did not prevent him putting in his request, which the chief adjudicator considered. So, I do not consider this is a matter the Ombudsman should investigate further as Mr X’s own actions prevented any injustice.
9. In reaching that view I am aware Mr X says he has suffered mental distress because of the way in which he has been dealt with. I am satisfied though this relates more to how London Tribunals considered the appeal and made the decision, rather than its failure to tell him about his right to ask for a review. I therefore do not intend to pursue the matter further.
10. Mr X is concerned about the amount of time given for him to put forward his views during the appeal. Mr X says the adjudicator gave him his decision on the appeal and would not then let him comment further. While I understand Mr X’s concern the process for the appeal was for the adjudicator to contact Mr X by telephone, for Mr X to put forward his arguments in support of his appeal and for the adjudicator to then give his decision. There is no facility once the decision has been given for Mr X to comment further. I therefore do not consider the way in which the appeal was handled was likely affected by administrative fault.
11. In reaching that view I have considered Mr X’s comments that he felt rushed during the telephone call and not able to put forward his points. I am satisfied though the adjudicator also had access to the written representations Mr X had made in support of his appeal and the decision was therefore not based solely on the representations Mr X made during the telephone call. The chief adjudicator when considering the review also considered the recording of the telephone call and identified no issues. In those circumstances if Mr X remains concerned about what evidence was considered during the appeal the way to challenge that is through judicial review. As I do not consider there are grounds for the Ombudsman to pursue an investigation of this complaint, both on the likelihood that there is no administrative fault and because the decision-making process itself falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction I have not made enquiries of London Tribunals.

Back to top

Final decision

12. As it is unlikely an investigation will identify any fault in how the Tribunal considered Mr X’s appeal and review and as the decision itself is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, I will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman