Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the Council told him not to challenge a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) because he would lose the right to pay at the discounted rate. Mr X wants a £65 refund because he did not commit an offence.

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 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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 Council. This includes the letter from the Council rejecting his challenge. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council issued Mr X with a PCN for driving in a bus lane. The fine was £130 but this was reduced by 50% if paid within 14 days.
7. Mr X challenged the fine. He said he was forced to drive in the bus lane to avoid roadworks. The Council rejected the challenge and gave him another 14 days to pay at the reduced rate. The letter said that if Mr X wanted to challenge the PCN further he should not pay but wait for the Enforcement Notice so he could make a formal challenge. The Council explained he could then appeal to the tribunal. The Council said that if Mr X did not pay within 14 days the full charge of £130 would apply.
8. Mr X paid the fine at the reduced rate. He wants a refund because he says the Council told him he would lose the right to pay at the reduced rate and because he does not agree that he commit an offence.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. This is because the Council correctly outlined Mr X’s options. The discounted rate is only available for a short time and this was explained by the Council. The Council correctly told Mr X what he should do if he wanted to pursue his challenge further. The regulations, which are set by parliament and not the Council, restrict the period when the discounted rate is payable and the Council’s letter correctly explained this. Mr X had the option to appeal or pay at the reduced rate.
10. Mr X continues to dispute the PCN. I will not investigate this part of the complaint because Mr X could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal because the tribunal is the appropriate organisation to consider PCN appeals. The tribunal has the power to cancel a PCN or direct that the appellant pay the fine at the full rate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman