Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because the complainant could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Mr X wants the Council to establish the facts, apologise and cancel the PCN.

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. 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 Council’s response. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Penalty Charge Notice

6. If someone wishes to dispute a PCN they can make an informal challenge. Alternatively, they have 14 days to pay the fine at a discounted rate of 50%. If they do not pay, or the Council rejects the informal challenge, the full amount becomes payable and the Council sends a Notice to Owner. If the person thinks the Council should not have issued the fine they can use the Notice to Owner to make a formal challenge. If the Council accepts the challenge it cancels the PCN. If not, then it issues a Notice of Rejection. The person can use the Notice of Rejection to appeal to the tribunal.

What happened

7. The Council issued Mr X with a PCN for parking on the pavement outside his home. Mr X challenged the PCN but the Council did not cancel it. Mr X paid the fine at the discounted rate.
8. Mr X complained about the PCN. He said the enforcement officer was rude. Mr X also said that he was unloading his shopping. In response the Council said it had issued the fine correctly because Mr X had parked with at least one wheel on the pavement, there was no sign of unloading and the gates were locked. The Council said it had reminded the officer of his duty to act professionally. The Council said Mr X could have challenged the PCN further rather than ending the process by paying the fine.
9. Mr X continues to dispute the fine. He says he was unloading his shopping and the officer could have asked him to move his car rather than issuing a PCN. He says his gates do not have locks so the Council’s response is inaccurate.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because, rather than paying the fine at the discounted rate, Mr X could have followed the statutory process. He could have waited for the Notice to Owner and then appealed to the tribunal. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider disputes about PCNs. The tribunal could have considered Mr X’s points that he was unloading his shopping and considered whether the Council issued the PCN correctly.
11. Mr X says his gates cannot be locked and I have no reason to doubt what he says. But the Council issued the fine due to footway parking and any inaccurate comment the Council made about the gates, does not affect this. And, as I said, if Mr X did not think the Council correctly issued the fine, he could have appealed to the tribunal. If appropriate, the tribunal has the power to cancel a PCN – we do not have that power.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because Mr X could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman