Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about A penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Authority has not accepted his representations against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) despite him providing evidence that the car was on hire at the time and the driver having already paid the congestion charge though an automated payment system.
2. Mr Y says this has caused the penalty to increase, causing him worry and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to 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 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)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y has a right to appeal the PCN further to the London Tribunals if he wishes. The London Tribunals can consider how the Authority dealt with Mr Y’s appeal, and whether it followed the correct process in considering his representations. If it finds that it did not consider the representations properly, it can then consider the issues Mr Y has raised as the reasons why the PCN is either invalid or should not be enforced.
8. Usually, a person must make an appeal to the tribunal within 28 days of a Notice of Rejection to representations being issued. Mr Y may therefore need to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) based at Northampton County Court once a charge certificate is issued by the Authority to seek permission to appeal to the London Tribunals after the deadline. However, this would be something which Mr Y may wish to approach the London Tribunals to confirm.
9. The London Tribunals is usually free in the initial stages and can make reasonable adjustments if necessary. I would therefore consider it reasonable for Mr Y to use this right of appeal.
10. Further, the tribunal has been set up for the purpose of considering the type of issues Mr Y has raised and has the power itself to cancel the PCN if warranted. It is therefore better placed than the Ombudsman, who can only ask the Authority to consider cancelling the PCN, to consider this complaint. We will therefore not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman