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

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly consider his informal challenge to a penalty charge notice (PCN). He has several medical conditions and believes the Council’s failure to take account of these conditions amounts to discrimination.

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. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

6. 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’.
7. 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.

Mr X’s case

8. Mr X informally challenged the PCN issued by the Council but the Council rejected his challenge. It then proceeded under the process set out above and has now taken action to pursue Mr X for payment.
9. Mr X says the Council’s refusal to consider or accept his challenge amounts to discrimination. He acknowledges the Council has cancelled other PCNs because of his medical conditions and believes it should also cancel this PCN. He also suggests the Council has been unreasonable and discriminatory by following the statutory process and not allowing him more time.
10. It is not our role to determine whether the Council has discriminated against Mr X; this is a matter for the courts. The Council should consider each case on its merits and I have reached no decision about whether it has done that here. However, if Mr X does not think it has, it would be reasonable for him to follow the process, make formal representations to the Council and appeal to London Tribunals. They are the appropriate body to deal with disputes over PCNs and to consider whether there are sufficient mitigating circumstances to warrant cancellation. The process is free and relatively simple to follow and while I acknowledge Mr X’s medical conditions I have seen nothing to show it would not have been reasonable for him to appeal. I have therefore decided not to exercise my discretion to investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to make representations against the PCN and appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman