Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to challenge the Notice by making representations to the Council, and if needed, putting in an appeal to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged parking contravention. Mr B says the Council should cancel the PCN because he made an honest mistake about where he was allowed to park and had actually paid for parking.

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 Act 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)
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 B.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council has recently written to Mr B and has said it is satisfied this PCN was correctly issued. The Council says it sent a Notice to Owner to Mr B in February 2024.
8. The Notice to Owner gave Mr B the opportunity to put in formal representations to the Council to challenge this PCN. If the Council had rejected Mr B’s representations, he would have had a right of appeal to London Tribunals.
9. This is the process set out in law to challenge a PCN. I find it was reasonable for Mr B to use this process.
10. The Tribunal is independent and in the best position to decide whether a PCN was properly issued. Also, the process is free and relatively straightforward to use.
11. Also, if Mr B did not receive the Notice to Owner and if the Council pursues this PCN further by sending him an Order for Recovery, he may put in a witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court. The Council has advised Mr B how to do this. I find it is reasonable for Mr B to use this process.
12. So, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to put in representations, and if needed, appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman