Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about 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 about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. He disputes the PCN and believes the Council should cancel it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’.
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review 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 use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

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

My assessment

8. 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’.
9. 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.
10. If the motorist does not pay or make formal representations the council will issue a charge certificate, increasing the amount payable by 50%. It may then apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court to register the debt, before instructing enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover it.
11. Mr X informally challenged the PCN and made formal representations against it but the Council rejected his arguments and confirmed the PCN had been properly issued. If Mr X wished to challenge the PCN further it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals.
12. Mr X has not paid the PCN so the Council escalated it through the process set out above and passed the case to bailiffs to recover payment from him. This is all part of the statutory process and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council has pursued the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman