Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the Council has cancelled the fine and the complainant could have used the statutory process.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) even though she had paid for her parking through Ringo. Mrs X wants the Council to recall the case from the bailiffs, apologise and pay compensation.

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. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. This includes the correspondence about the PCN and an update from the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. There is a statutory process people can use to challenge a PCN. To summarise, this includes using the Notice to Owner to formally challenge a PCN and appealing to the tribunal if the Council rejects the challenge. If people do not pay the fine, or follow the statutory process, a council can register the fine in court and instruct bailiffs. The statutory process includes strict deadlines.
7. The Council issued Mrs X with a PCN. Mrs X made an informal challenge and explained she had paid for her parking using Ringo. The Council rejected her challenge and sent the Notice to Owner.
8. Mrs X, at various times, sent letters and information about her Ringo payment. But, she did not follow the statutory process or keep to the timescales.
9. Mrs X had not paid the PCN, or followed the correct process, so the Council instructed bailiffs.
10. In response to my enquiries the Council said Mrs X had not used the correct car registration when she used Ringo to pay for her parking. The Council has written to Mrs X to explain this and to say it had correctly issued the PCN because it is the motorist’s responsibility to use the correct details. The Council told Mrs X it had cancelled the PCN but would not do so again for a similar contravention.
11. I will not start an investigation because Mrs X could have used the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal. It is reasonable to expect her to appeal because this is the correct way to challenge a PCN.
12. I also will not investigate the complaint because the Council has cancelled the PCN and closed the case. There is no reason to ask the Council to apologise or pay compensation because Mrs X could have used the statutory process and because the Council has cancelled the PCN.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because Mrs X could have appealed to the tribunal and because the Council has cancelled the PCN.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman