Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about two Penalty Charge Notices. This is because the complainant could have followed the statutory process and because the Council has proposed a fair way forward.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about two Penalty Charge Notices (PCN). Ms X thought she had parked in a staff car park where parking was permitted. She says her employer had not provided the correct information about using the car park. Ms X wants a refund.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of 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 use this right. (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 Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and an update from the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X thought she could park in a staff car. The Council issued two PCNs; the notices said she parked without displaying a permit or pay and display ticket. Ms X says her employer had not explained what she needed to do to park without incurring fines.
7. Ms X challenged both fines and explained her employer had not provided the correct information. The Council rejected both challenges.
8. For one of the PCNs Ms X paid £75 but later indicated she still disputed it. The Council gave her the option of asking for a refund so the case could be re-opened and she would have another chance to appeal. Ms X did not provide the payment information the Council had asked for so it could not process a refund. The case remained closed.
9. For the other PCN Ms X said she had started the formal appeal process by completing the Notice to Owner; the Council did not receive it and it was not clear if Ms X had submitted it. In response the Council said it was too late to appeal and if Ms X did not pay £75 it would register the debt in court. Ms X paid £75.
10. Ms X appealed to us about the PCNs. We are not an appeal body and it is not my role to decide if the Council was correct to issue the PCNs. There is a statutory process to challenge a PCN. This includes making a formal challenge to the Council and then appealing to the tribunal. If someone makes a formal challenge and does not get a response, they can apply to the court for a statutory declaration. If the court grants a declaration the process either reverts to an earlier stage or the case is passed to the tribunal.
11. I will not investigate this complaint because Ms X could have followed the statutory process. It is reasonable to expect her to do this because appealing to the tribunal, by following the set process, is the correct way to challenge a PCN. For the first PCN Ms X could have provided the payment details so the Council could issue a refund; Ms X could then have followed the statutory process.
12. Regarding the second PCN, the Council could have explained that if Ms X did not pay then it would register the debt in court but she could apply for a statutory declaration; the Council did not explain this option. The Council has now written to Ms X inviting her to ask for a refund. The Council would then re-open the case, register the debt in court and Ms X could apply for a statutory declaration. It would be for the court to decide whether to grant a declaration. If it does not, or Ms X loses an appeal at the tribunal, she would have to pay the PCN. If Ms X does not ask for a refund the case will remain closed. This is a fair response by the Council because it puts Ms X back in the position she would have been in if the Council had explained the statutory declaration option when it wrote to her earlier in the year.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because Ms X could have followed the statutory process and the Council has provided a fair remedy by inviting Ms X to apply for a refund.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman