Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s escalation of a penalty charge notice because he has challenged the process at court. If Mr X wishes to challenge the notice it would be reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council did not respond to his informal challenge to a penalty charge notice (PCN) for a parking contravention. He says the Council’s actions have caused him stress, anxiety and depression, as well as concern about his finances.

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, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court but cannot investigate if the person has already put the matter to a court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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)
5. 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

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

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council issued Mr X a PCN for a parking contravention in December 2020.
8. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them. When a council issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal; appeals at this stage are known as ‘informal challenges’.
9. If the motorist submits an informal challenge to a PCN and the Council decides not to accept them, it will write to the motorist and explain why. If the motorist accepts the Council’s reasons they may pay the PCN; if not, they may wait for a ‘notice to owner’. This provides a further opportunity for the owner of the vehicle to pay the charge or make ‘formal representations’ against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to London Tribunals.
10. If the motorist does not pay or make formal representations the council will issue a charge certificate, increasing the amount payable by 50%. It may then apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court to register the debt, before instructing enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover it.

Mr X’s case

11. Mr X informally challenged the PCN in December 2020 on the grounds the Council had delayed issuing his permit and he should not be penalised for this. He says he did not receive a response.
12. Mr X has now challenged the Council’s escalation of the PCN with the TEC and it has agreed to cancel the charge certificate. Because Mr X has put the matter to the TEC we cannot investigate any complaint about the Council’s handling of the case.
13. Mr X continues to dispute the PCN but it is for London Tribunals to decide if the Council’s delay provides sufficient mitigation to recommend the Council cancels it. It would therefore be reasonable for Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals.
14. While Mr X alleges fault in the Council’s handling of his permit request this delay did not directly cause Mr X injustice. Mr X’s injustice lies in the PCN he received and this was the result of his decision to park where he did knowing he did not have a permit.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s escalation of the PCN as he has put the matter to the TEC. If Mr X wishes to challenge the PCN it would be reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman