Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice (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. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
5. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

8. Mr X parked a car which belonged to a third party in a council car park while he visited various shops in town. He says he made several attempts to pay for parking using two different cards but the machine showed an error each time. He therefore left the car without a valid parking ticket and received a PCN.
9. Mr X challenged the PCN but the Council rejected his challenge. It offered Mr X the chance to pay the PCN at the discounted rate of £25 but Mr X refused. The Council then wrote to the registered keeper of the vehicle at the next stage of the process known as a ‘notice to owner’. The registered keeper also disputed the PCN but asked the Council to take the matter up with Mr X as he was driving the vehicle at the time. The Council rejected the registered keeper’s representations and sent a new notice to owner to Mr X. Mr X continued to challenge the PCN but accepted the Council’s offer to pay the PCN at the discounted rate of £25. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his challenges to the PCN and believes its processes are too severe. He says this is a poor use of taxpayer money.

Back to top

My assessment

10. We cannot investigate any complaint about the impact of the Council’s actions on the borough’s taxpayers. This is because the issue affects ‘all or most’ of the people in the area.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the PCN as it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. The Council’s correspondence clearly set out the process for Mr X to appeal and the Tribunal could have considered his comments about why he was unable to pay. It could also have cancelled the PCN and was therefore better placed to deal with the dispute.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman