Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about penalty charge notices issued to motorists as these can be addressed via a statutory appeal process. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response following his successful appeal against one such notice as there is insufficient remaining injustice caused to him to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not learned from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal’s (TPT) decision on his appeal against a penalty charge notice (PCN). Mr X wants the Council to refund other motorists similarly issued with PCNs and to ensure future PCNs are issued with sufficient evidence, of a contravention, to substantiate them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X was issued with a parking PCN which he successfully appealed to the TPT. MR X now wants the Council to examine other PCNs issued at the same location and make refunds to those motorists concerned.
7. We will not investigate this as any other motorists issued with a PCN at the location in question have the same rights as Mr X did, that is, to formally appeal to the TPT. This is the procedure provided by Parliament and it is reasonable to expect others affected to use it.
8. While I recognise Mr X’s concern, he is not caused any significant harm or loss from the Council’s response to his follow up queries, after his own PCN was cancelled.
9. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we would expect other motorists issued with PCNs to follow the appeal process provided for them in law, should they wish to challenge them. There is insufficient remaining injustice caused to Mr X to justify our further involvement with respect to the Council’s handling of his follow up queries.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman