Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about two penalty charge notices issued by the Council as he has used his right of appeal against them. We will not investigate his complaint about the handling of his appeals as the Council is not responsible for setting the date for the hearings.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about two penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by the Council. He also complains London Tribunals considered his appeals against the PCNs while he was out of the country, and despite his requests to delay the hearings. He says this led to financial loss.

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 or continue with 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. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal but cannot investigate if the person has already appealed. (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 Mr X’s complaint, shared my draft decision with him and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council issued Mr X two PCNs for parking contraventions in 2018. Mr X informally challenged the PCNs but the Council refused his challenges. He then made formal representations which the Council also refused. He appealed to London Tribunals and they scheduled a date for his appeal hearings. But the date was not convenient for Mr X as it was during a period he was not in the country. He contacted London Tribunals and told them when he was due to return, but London Tribunals held the appeal hearings in his absence. It dismissed his appeals and ordered Mr X to pay the PCNs.
7. Because Mr X was not in the country he did not receive London Tribunals’ correspondence. The Council therefore escalated the cases through the first two stages of the enforcement/recovery process until Mr X’s son became aware of what had happened. When he found out, Mr X’s son paid the PCNs at a combined rate of £398. Mr X believes the Council should refund his payment and cancel the PCNs.
8. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the PCNs as he has appealed against them to London Tribunals.
9. While Mr X is not happy London Tribunals considered his appeals while he was out of the country the Council is not responsible for this. London Tribunals decided the date for the hearings and the Council could not alter this itself.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals and the Council is not responsible for setting the date for his appeal hearings.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman