Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice for a parking contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for a parking contravention. Mr B says the temporary parking restriction for maintenance works was not clearly signed and the officer did not allow enough time before issuing the PCN. Mr B also says no maintenance works were taking place at the time and his car was not causing an obstruction. Mr B would like the Council to refund the money he paid to cancel this PCN.

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. 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 B.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. There is a process set out in law for a motorist to formally challenge a PCN. This involves the motorist putting in formal representations to the local authority, and if needed, putting in an appeal to London Tribunals (for authorities in London). We generally expect this process to be used. The tribunal is independent and has the power to cancel a PCN.
8. Rather than pay this PCN, I find it was reasonable for Mr B to put in representations, and if needed, appeal to London Tribunals.
9. Mr B could have argued that this parking restriction was not clearly signed and the Council did not follow the correct process when issuing this PCN. These are valid grounds of appeal.
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 London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman