Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr B to challenge the Council’s decision through its appeals process and then a tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the Council’s decision to issue a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). He says he feels targeted because its officer only issued him a PCN and not other vehicles.
2. Mr B wants the Council to cancel the PCN

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

5. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered information provided by Mr B.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Evidence shows the Council’s refused Mr B’s informal challenge against its decision to issue a PCN. It told Mr B to appeal its refusal through a formal representation and then through a tribunal if he remains dissatisfied.
10. I will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. It is reasonable to expect Mr B to challenge the Council’s decision through its formal appeals process first and then take the matter to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for its consideration if he remains dissatisfied. It is the appropriate body to consider such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to challenge the Council’s decision through its appeals process and then a tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman