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. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to issue him a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). He said a pothole in the road caused a flat tyre which forced him to park in a restricted area. He said the Council failed to properly consider this and rejected his informal representations. Mr X said, the Council incorrectly said he had accepted liability after he paid the PCN. Mr X said the Council’s poor road maintenance created the pothole and it should revoke his PCN.
2. Mr A said he suffered emotional and financial stress dealing with this matter. He wants the Council to refund the £65 he paid for the PCN and to reimburse him for the damages to his vehicles. Mr X also wants the Council to rewrite its policy and apologise to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complained about how the Council considered his PCN informal representation. He said the Council failed to properly consider his reasons and it incorrectly said he had accepted liability after he paid the PCN. Mr X said the Council’s poor road maintenance created the pothole and it should revoke his PCN.
9. The Council rejected Mr X’s challenge. It said when considering breakdown claims, it must be satisfied the cause was due to unforeseen circumstances and serious failure beyond the driver’s control. It stated it would not deem a flat tyre a justifying cause for a cancellation, regardless of how this flat tyre occurred.
10. The Council advised Mr X, he had the right to make formal representations if he did not agree with its decision and he should in this case not pay the PCN. It said if Mr X decided to pay the PCN, it would mean he accepted the liability for the PCN.
11. Mr X paid the PCN at the discounted rate. The Council closed the case.
12. If Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision, he could have made formal representations and, if that was rejected, appealed to the London Tribunals. It is reasonable for Mr X to follow the appeal route as it is the correct body to consider PCN appeals. The tribunal could have considered the circumstances and, if the adjudicator did not think the Council had properly considered what happened (the mitigating factors), then the adjudicator could have referred the case back to the Council to reconsider.
13. In addition, we will not consider Mr X’s complaint about damages to his car. We would usually expect someone in Mr X’s position to seek a remedy directly in the courts or through his insurers. The Ombudsman cannot consider matters of damages and liability.

Back to top

Final decision

14. 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