Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the representations process for a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because Ms Y has already appealed to the London Tribunals, and we could not separate the injustice Ms Y claims or hold the Council responsible for it.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments during the representations process for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
2. Ms Y says this was traumatic and unhelpful, and if the Council had acted differently she would have paid the lower amount of penalty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. The courts have said we can decide not to investigate a complaint about any action by a council concerning a matter which is outside our jurisdiction. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2006] EHWCC 2847 (Admin))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Ms Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued a PCN to Ms Y after she stopped her car in a yellow box junction. Miss Y made representations about the PCN to the Council. She says during this process she asked for reasonable adjustments for a disability, including that an officer talk through the details of the PCN with her. She says the Council refused this and rejected her representations. The Council told us Ms Y did not ask it to adjust its process. At this stage, the penalty amount had increased from £65 to £130.
8. Miss Y then appealed to London Tribunals. A parking adjudicator rejected the appeal. Miss Y says London Tribunals explained the contravention to her during its oral hearing. She says once she understood the contravention, she accepted liability for the PCN. She says if the Council had provided her with the requested reasonable adjustment in its process, she would have understood the contravention and paid the penalty earlier at the lower amount.
9. We cannot investigate the PCN process because Ms Y has already appealed to London Tribunals.
10. There are two different versions of whether Ms Y asked the Council to adjust its procedure to explain the PCN to her orally. There is no evidence to show what happened so we cannot decide which is correct.
11. However, as a driver Ms Y should be aware of the rules of the road including those relating to box junctions. She should not have needed the Council to explain the contravention to her, and we could not therefore decide on balance the Council is responsible for the injustice Ms Y claims.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because she has already appealed to the London Tribunals, and we could not separate from the appeal process any injustice Ms Y claims or say the Council is responsible for it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman