Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about London Tribunal’s handling of her appeal against a penalty charge notice. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants. The law does not allow us to consider complaints about the Adjudicator’s decision to dismiss Ms X’s appeal, including the way they reached the decision, and the administrative issues she complains about did not cause her significant injustice separate from the decision itself.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about London Tribunals’ handling of her appeal against a penalty charge notice (PCN). She says the Adjudicator failed to include her in the telephone hearing and ignored national traffic regulations in reaching their decision to dismiss her appeal. She is also unhappy with the way London Tribunals dealt with her complaint.

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. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London. The appeals are heard by adjudicators who are appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
5. We have jurisdiction to investigate complaints about the administrative actions of London Tribunals. However, the adjudicators themselves act in a quasi-judicial way. We cannot consider a complaint about a decision taken by an adjudicator on an individual appeal.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Authority.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Adjudicator ignored national regulations and decided wrongly to dismiss her appeal. This is because such matters are not subject to investigation as set out at Paragraph 5.
9. While Ms X’s concerns about the failure to include her in the telephone hearing and the way London Tribunals dealt with her complaint are arguably administrative issues which may be subject to investigation, the injustice she claims stems from the decision to dismiss her appeal and the outcome she wants is to reopen the case and review whether the decision was correct. This is not something we can achieve as we have no power to reopen the case or to question or overturn the decision. I acknowledge the administrative issues likely caused Ms X some injustice in her frustration and uncertainty about whether the outcome could have been different but this is limited and not significant enough to warrant investigation.
10. If Ms X disputes the Adjudicator’s decision and believes her case should be looked at again the only way to achieve this would be to apply for Judicial Review. There is no guarantee any such application would be successful and it would likely come at significant cost, so Ms X should consider this approach carefully before deciding whether to proceed with it.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman