Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant could have used his appeal rights and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). He says the Authority misled him about the amount of the fine. He also says the Authority should show compassion and cancel or reduce the fine.

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 an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (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 read the complaint and the letters the Authority sent to Mr X about the PCN. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Moving traffic offence

6. If someone disputes a fine for a moving traffic offence they can challenge it with the Authority. If the Authority rejects the challenge it issues a Notice of Rejection. This gives the person another chance to pay at the discounted rate of £65 or explains they can appeal to the tribunal. If they lose at appeal the person must pay the full fine. If the person neither pays nor appeals the Authority will register the debt in court and can then instruct bailiffs. The fine increases as the enforcement process progresses.

What happened

7. The Authority issued a PCN for making a prohibited left turn. The fine was £130. Mr X challenged the PCN. He said the restriction was new and he did not see the sign because it was obstructed by traffic. He said he had been visiting a sick relative.
8. In response, the Authority confirmed Mr X had made a prohibited turn and it was his responsibility to follow traffic signs. The Authority issued a Notice of Rejection which gave Mr X another 14 days to pay at the reduced rate of £65 and explained his appeal rights for the tribunal which must be lodged within 28 days.
9. Mr X did not pay or appeal. The Authority issued a Charge Certificate which increased the fine to £195 and warned Mr X it would register the fine in court if he did not pay. Mr X again repeated his points about why he thought the Authority should cancel the fine. In response the Authority said it was too late to appeal and he needed to pay £195.
10. Mr X says he cannot afford to pay and the Authority should show some compassion. He says the Authority doubled the fine which is wrong. He wants the Authority to cancel the fine or allow him to pay at the discounted rate.

Assessment

11. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
12. Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal if he did not think he had committed a moving traffic offence or if he did not think the restriction was properly signed. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider appeals about PCNs. In addition, the Authority explained Mr X’s appeal rights.
13. I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority. The Authority told Mr X the fine was £130 but that this was reduced to £65 if he paid promptly and within 14 days of getting the Notice of Rejection. Mr X did not pay promptly so he lost the right to pay at the discounted rate. Mr X has now incurred a higher fine because he did not pay within 28 days of the Notice of Rejection. There is nothing to suggest the Authority misled Mr X or did anything wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not start an investigation because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman