London Borough of Bromley (24 011 565)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 20 Oct 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice and the Council’s handling of the matter. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to a tribunal, thereby placing the matter out of our jurisdiction.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains the Council incorrectly issued him a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). He says it failed to communicate with him in a timely way.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  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’, 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

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. The Council investigated the matter and decided not to cancel the PCN. It told Mr X how to appeal. It would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the London Tribunals at the time if he was dissatisfied with the Council’s decision. The London Tribunals is the appropriate body to review such matters.
  2. Further, any injustice caused by the Council’s delay in responding to Mr X is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to a tribunal.

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