Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about London Tribunals’ scheduling of hearings to consider his appeals against two penalty charge notices. This is because the complaint is late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains London Tribunals scheduled hearings to decide his appeals against two penalty charge notices (PCNs) for a date he was away from the country to receive medical treatment. He informed London Tribunals he wished to move the date but London Tribunals did not respond. As a result he says he missed his opportunity to challenge the PCNs.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, shared my draft decision with him and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X received two PCNs from the same council in 2018. He challenged the PCNs with the council but was not happy with its responses, so he appealed to London Tribunals. London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
6. Mr X suggests that when he submitted his appeals to London Tribunals he explained he would be out of the country from November 2018 to February 2019 for medical treatment. So when London Tribunals wrote to him on 1 November 2018 confirming it would hold his appeal hearings in December 2019, Mr X responded asking it to arrange an alternative date.
7. London Tribunals did not respond to Mr X’s letter and held his appeals in his absence while he was out of the country. It dismissed his appeals and when the Council wrote explaining it intended to progress the case as he had not paid the PCNs, his son made payment on his behalf. Mr X is unhappy with London Tribunal’s handling of the matter and believes there are grounds to cancel the PCNs which he could not put forward at the hearing as he was unable to attend.
8. We can consider complaints about the administrative actions of London Tribunals but cannot look at the actions or decisions of its Adjudicators. This is because they have a quasi-judicial role and the Adjudicators themselves do not fall within our jurisdiction.
9. Mr X’s complaint does concern an administrative action of London Tribunals but his complaint is late. Mr X was aware of the date London Tribunals intended to hold its hearings in November 2018 and would have been aware by the time he returned to the country in February 2019 that the hearings had been held in his absence. He should therefore have complained firstly to London Tribunals and then to us by February 2020. But I have seen no evidence to show Mr X has raised his complaint with London Tribunals under its complaints procedure and he did not refer the matter to us until January 2021, nearly a year later. I have seen no good reasons for Mr X’s delay and I will not therefore exercise our discretion to investigate his late complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman