Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her informal challenge to a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal. In any event, Mrs X has now paid the penalty charge at the discounted rate of £35 and this amount is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her informal challenge to a penalty charge notice (PCN). She says the Council requested evidence from her but did not then consider it and that it provided incorrect information in response to her challenge.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. While Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her informal challenge the injustice she claims stems from the PCN itself. If Mrs X felt the PCN was unfair and that the Council had not properly considered her challenge it would have been reasonable for her to appeal.
8. The Council explained the appeals process to Mrs X on several occasions but Mrs X decided not to use it. This was at least in part due to her not wanting to risk the PCN increasing from £35 to £70. But this does not provide good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate her complaint; any motorist wishing to appeal against a PCN risks the possibility their appeal will be refused and that the amount they owe will increase. But this is how the statutory process works and it is not the result of any fault by the Council.
9. The complaints process does not provide an alternative way to challenge a council’s decision not to cancel a PCN and the amount Mrs X paid (£35) is not significant enough to warrant investigation in any event.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. The amount of her payment is also not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman