Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about penalty charge notices because it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals. Additionally, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to cancel two Penalty Charge Notices (PCN). He said it failed properly consider his medical evidence when he challenged the PCNs. He said the Council’s actions have caused him distress and he wants it to cancel the PCNs.

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 law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal 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 appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X received two PCNs. One for parking in a restricted area and one for driving where cars are not allowed.
9. Mr X challenged the PCNs, but the Council rejected his challenges. The Council started enforcement action against the PCNs.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not cancelling the PCN for parking in a restricted area. When the Council rejected Mr X’s challenge, he had a right to appeal to an independent tribunal called the London Tribunals. They are the appropriate body to deal with disputes over PCNs and to consider whether there are sufficient mitigating circumstances to warrant cancellation. The process is free and relatively simple to follow and therefore it would be reasonable for Mr X to appeal.
11. Additionally, we cannot direct the Council to cancel a PCN. However, the Council has already agreed to cancel the PCN if Mr X can provide it with a copy of his blue badge. Therefore, further investigation by us is unlikely to achieve anything more.
12. Nor will we investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not cancelling the PCN for driving where cars are not allowed. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his medical evidence when making its decision.
13. For moving traffic PCNs, the Tribunal cannot look at an appeal where the motorist accepts they broke the rules but does not think they should have to pay the fine because there were special circumstances. However, the authority can cancel the fine at any time if it agrees there were special circumstances.
14. The Council told Mr X he could send further evidence and it would consider cancelling his PCN. The letter told him where he could send this. However, Mr X used a different email address to send evidence and he said this email address did not work. He complained to the Council.
15. The Council responded to say Mr X had used the wrong email address. However, it had now considered his evidence and decided it could not accept it as a reason to cancel the PCN and told him why. It offered for him to pay the original PCN, without the additional fees.
16. Although I accept Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to cancel the PCN, the Ombudsman cannot challenge the outcome of a council’s decision, provided the council made that decision without fault. The Council considered Mr X’s evidence and told him why it would not cancel the PCN. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would be reasonable for him to appeal. Additionally, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman