Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. This is because the amount of the penalty charge paid is not significant enough to warrant investigation. Mr X also had a right of appeal to London Tribunals which it would have been reasonable for him to use.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. He believes the PCN is unfair and says the Council took 64 days to respond to his challenge to it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council issued Mr X a PCN for a parking contravention which Mr X considers unfair. He informally challenged the PCN at the first stage of the process but is unhappy the Council took 64 days to respond to him, by which point he had paid the PCN. The Council then rejected his challenge.
7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the PCN. This is because it carried a right of appeal to London Tribunals and if Mr X had wished to challenge it further it would have been reasonable for him to withhold payment and appeal.
8. Mr X has in any event paid the PCN at the discounted rate of £65 and his injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation. We have limited resources and must prioritise the most serious complaints. The cost of an Ombudsman investigation runs into the hundreds of pounds and it would be disproportionate to investigate a loss of £65 when Mr X had the option to appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice Mr X claims is not significant enough to warrant investigation and if Mr X had wanted to challenge the PCN it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman