Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) while he was in the process of paying for his parking. Mr X wants a refund and for the Council to stop the officer working in that street.

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 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 X and the Council. This includes the PCN and the Council’s response to Mr X’s challenge. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. If someone disputes a PCN they can make an informal challenge to the Council. If the Council rejects the challenge it offers another chance to pay at the discounted rate or, as an alternative to paying, the person can wait for the Notice to Owner and make a formal challenge. If the Council rejects a formal challenge the person can appeal to the tribunal. The tribunal can refer the case back to the Council if the adjudicator does not think the Council properly considered any mitigating circumstances.
7. The Council issued a PCN to Mr X because he had not paid for his parking. Mr X says this is unfair because he was visiting family and had gone upstairs to make payment arrangements. The Council says the officer observed the car for seven minutes and saw no activity around the car.
8. Mr X made an informal challenge which the Council rejected. It said drivers are required to pay immediately and are not permitted to leave the car without paying. The Council said Mr X could pay the fine at the discounted rate or wait for the Notice to Owner. Mr X paid at the discounted rate and the Council closed the case.
9. Mr X then tried to challenge the PCN though the complaints process. In response the Council said it had followed the correct procedures.
10. I will not start an investigation because Mr X could have used the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal. It is reasonable to expect him to do this because it is the correct process to challenge PCNs. The tribunal is free to use and the adjudicator could have considered Mr X’s points about why he thinks the Council issued the PCN in error and, if appropriate, the adjudicator could have referred the case back to the Council for further consideration.
11. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to decide if a council was right to issue a PCN. We can only consider if a council followed the correct process; in this case the Council followed the correct process by considering Mr X’s initial challenge and explaining the next steps. Mr X chose to pay rather than appeal so the Council correctly closed the case.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have used the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman