Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council for a parking contravention. The complainant had a statutory right of appeal which it was reasonable for him to have used.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, complained because the Council issued a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention. He believes this was unfair as there were no signs showing where he could park his campervan. He also says the Council unfairly put pressure on him to pay the penalty charge rather than appeal.

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. It 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint. The Council also provided a copy of its correspondence with Mr B about the penalty charge notice.

Back to top

What I found

Background

4. The Council enforces parking restrictions and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the Traffic Management Act 2004 and associated Regulations. Councils and motorists must follow these procedures.
5. In law, the owner of vehicle is responsible for any penalty charges regardless of who was driving at the time of the contravention. This is most often the person registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) as the keeper of the vehicle. Enforcement authorities will initially send any formal documents using details provided by the DVLA.
6. Mr B had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) which is a statutory tribunal. An appeal to the TPT is free and relatively easy to use. It is also the way in which Parliament expects people to contest a penalty charge notice. For these reasons, the restriction I describe in paragraph 2 would generally apply.

Summary of events

7. The Council issued a penalty charge notice because it believed Mr B had parked his campervan in a car park outside the marked bays. The penalty charge was £50 although the Council could accept a discounted amount of £25 if Mr B paid within 14 days.
8. Mr B wrote to the Council to explain why he did not think he should pay the penalty charge. The Council decided not to accept Mr B’s challenge and explained his options were:
• to pay £25 within a further 14 days or £50 within 28 days; or
• if he wanted to formally challenge the penalty charge notice he should wait for the Council to issue a ‘notice to owner’. He could then make formal representations and appeal to an independent adjudicator if the Council did not accept these.
9. Mr B continued to correspond with the Council which did not alter its position. It continued to advise Mr B how he could challenge the penalty charge notice.
10. Eventually Mr B paid the discounted amount of £25 which the Council accepted.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because I have seen no reason Mr B could not have appealed to the TPT if he wished to challenge the penalty charge notice. Further, there is nothing to suggest the Council has not followed the statutory procedures. I consider the restriction I describe in paragraph 2 applies and there is no reason we should investigate this complaint regardless of that restriction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman