Westminster City Council (24 019 972)
Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 18 Mar 2025
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.
The complaint
- Mr Y complained the Council wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to him for stopping in a yellow box junction. He says this has affected him, financially and is seeking a refund.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
- London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mr Y disputes the validity of the PCN the Council has issued. He has now paid the penalty, despite his disagreement with it, instead of using his right to appeal it to the London Tribunals. Mr Y says he does not believe he had commit the contravention; it is for him as the driver and recipient of the PCN to challenge this with the Tribunal if he does not wish to pay the penalty.
- In deciding not to appeal and paying the penalty, Mr Y has legally accepted his liability for the penalty and the validity of the PCN itself. As he has accepted his responsibility and liability for the PCN, there is not enough evidence of fault in the issuing of the PCN to justify our investigation. We will not investigate.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman