Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to put in formal representations, and if needed, put in an appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged parking contravention. Mr B says there was no indication motorists must pay for parking in this location and the Council has not justified its decision to issue this PCN. Mr B would like the Council to: accept fault; apologise; refund the £25 he paid to cancel this PCN; and, put up correct signage in this location.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The Act 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. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr B.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We will not normally investigate a complaint that a PCN should not have been issued. This is because there is a statutory representations and appeals procedure which we generally expect a motorist to use.
8. After receiving a Notice to Owner, the motorist may put in formal representations to the authority which issued the PCN. If the authority rejects these representations, the motorist may put in an appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (for local authorities outside London). The tribunal is independent and has the power to cancel a PCN.
9. Rather than pay this PCN, Mr B could have used this process to challenge the PCN. The Council told Mr B about this process. I have not seen any information to suggest it was unreasonable for Mr B to put in formal representations, and if needed, appeal to the tribunal.
10. So, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to put in an appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman