Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly issued fourteen Parking Contravention Notices to her and did not accept her appeals. Mrs X states this caused her unnecessary stress and expense. We will not investigate this complaint as it is reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council wrongly issued fourteen Parking Contravention Notices (PCN) and did not accept her appeals about the final nine. This caused stress and expense to Mrs X and her son who drives the car.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered Mrs X’s complaint and read the documents provided by the Council. Mrs X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Statutory Guidance for the civil enforcement of parking contraventions describes how someone can appeal a PCN. It states the person responsible for the vehicle may dispute the PCN by an informal challenge before the authority has served a Notice to Owner (NTO). If the authority has issued an NTO the owner can make a formal representation to the authority. If the authority rejects the formal appeal the owner may appeal to an independent adjudicator. In this case the independent adjudicator is the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
7. Between June 2020 and January 2021 the Council issued Mrs X fourteen PCNs for either parking on a single white line or overstaying in a free bay. Twelve of those PCNs related to the same street, and two for an adjoining street.
8. Mrs X appealed to the Council about the first five PCNs and the Council accepted her appeals. When it accepted the fifth appeal in August 2020 the Council wrote to Mrs X and told her that although it had accepted the fifth appeal it would not accept any more appeals made on the same reasons, in the same area.
9. Mrs X received a sixth PCN in October 2020 and appealed to the Council. The Council rejected this and Mrs X appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. The Tribunal refused the appeal in December 2020. Mrs X requested a review of the decision and this was also rejected by the Tribunal.
10. Between October 2020 and January 2021 Mrs X was issued with seven further PCNs on the same street for the same contraventions. Mrs X appealed all of them to the Council and the Council rejected those appeals. Mrs X has not appealed these to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Back to top

Analysis

11. The restrictions outlined in paragraph 3 applies to the PCN issued in October 2020. We cannot investigate this matter as Mrs X has already appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
12. The restrictions outlined in paragraph 4 applies because Mrs X can appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal about the PCNs issued between October 2020 and January 2021. We have discretion to disapply this rule where we decide it would be unreasonable for someone to appeal. In this case I have decided not to exercise discretion because Mrs X has already appealed to the Tribunal about one PCN and it is reasonable that she appeals about the others.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mrs X has already appealed one PCN to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and it is reasonable that she should appeal the others.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman