London Borough of Camden (24 007 187)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 23 Sep 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Tribunal and then the London Tribunals.

The complaint

  1. Mr Y complained the Council has wrongly issued him with Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) and failed to cancel three PCNs, despite cancelling one in the same circumstances and appealing the PCNs together.
  2. Mr Y says this has led to the three PCNs continuing to the enforcement stage, for which he now owes over £500, causing him distress and worry.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
  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. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Mr Y disputes the validity of the remaining PCNs which have not been cancelled. The Council has responded to his complaint, explaining that in its view, there are insufficient reasons to cancel the other PCNs.
  2. If Mr Y disputes the remaining PCNs validity, he has a right to submit a statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), asking it to remove the charge certificate for the PCN. He will need to explain his reasons for not having appealed the PCNs sooner.
  3. If the TEC accepts Mr Y’s application it can take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the PCNs and reinstating Mr Y’s right of appeal to the London Tribunals. Mr Y can then decide if he wishes to appeal the PCNs or pay the penalties. This can be done even where Mr Y has paid a bailiff for the penalties.
  4. This is often free in the initial stages and reasonable adjustments can be made where necessary for access to the service. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to use his right to appeal. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Tribunal and then the London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings