Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. This is because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to appeal. I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council and the amount of the penalty charge notice Miss X has now paid is not significant enough to warrant our continued involvement in the matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. She believes the Council was wrong to issue the PCN and to refuse her appeal. She also complains the Council failed to respond to her appeal at the second stage of the process.

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 about the same matter. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

The statutory appeals process

7. 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’. This is Stage 1 of the appeal process described on the Council’s website.
8. 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. This is referred to by the Council as Stage 2 of the appeals process.
9. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. This is referred to as Stage 3.

Back to top

Background

10. Miss X disputes the PCN issued by the Council. She believes it was the result of an issue with a parking ‘app’ which she should not be penalised for. She informally challenged the PCN at Stage 1 of the Council’s appeals process but the Council refused her challenge. It explained:

“If you wish to appeal further you will have to make a formal representation on a Notice to Owner document, this will be sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle, if the Notice remains unpaid, no earlier than 28 days from the date of the PCN issue. The Notice will be at the full charge of £50.00. This document explains the representation procedure, and your appeal will be investigated by Bury Council, Parking Services.”

11. Miss X did not wait for the ‘Notice to Owner’ (NtO) and instead responded to the Council’s rejection, disputing its decision. The Council did not respond to Miss X’s email.
12. The Council sent Miss X an NtO on 23 September 2022 but Miss X did not make formal representations at Stage 2 of the process. The Council therefore issued a charge certificate on 25 October 2022 which increased the amount of the PCN to £75.
13. Miss X wrote to the Council to appeal further on 5 November 2022 but by this point she was out of time. The Council explained this in its response and Miss X paid the PCN on 13 November 2022.

Back to top

My assessment

14. Miss X followed the first stage of the appeals process by informally challenging the PCN. The Council considered Miss X’s challenge but decided not to accept it. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it was reached. Miss X provided a screenshot of the parking app but this only shows that she did not complete the required steps to pay for parking, rather than that there was any issue with the app itself.
15. The process for challenging the PCN further was set out in the Council’s letter of rejection dated 30 August 2022, quoted at Paragraph 9 above. It would also have been explained in the NtO itself. If therefore Miss X had wished to challenge the PCN further it would have been reasonable for her to appeal once she received the NtO.
16. Miss X says the information provided by the Council and on its website was unclear and contradictory but I do not agree. The Council’s letter was clear and the information on its website confirms that Miss X could appeal further following the issue of the NtO.
17. I appreciate Miss X’s frustration that the Council did not respond to her email but there was no requirement for it to do so. The Council had already rejected Miss X’s challenge and it was under no obligation to enter into further correspondence about the issue at that stage.
18. Miss X has now paid the PCN; she would like the Council to refund her payment but the amount of the PCN is not significant enough to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to follow the statutory appeals process. I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council affecting Miss X’s right of appeal and the amount of the PCN is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman