Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s issue of a penalty charge notice and its handling of his appeal against the notice. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals and the law does not allow us to investigate the Council’s conduct as part of the appeals process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s issue and handling of a penalty charge notice (PCN). He has appealed against the PCN but is unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his appeal. He also believes its actions breached the Human Rights and Equality Act and is unhappy with its escalation of the case following London Tribunals’ decision to dismiss his appeal.

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. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. We cannot determine if the Council’s actions breached the Human Rights or Equality Act. This is a matter for the courts.
8. We also cannot look at whether the Council was right to issue the PCN and in its decision not to cancel it following Mr X’s challenge. This is because Mr X has appealed to London Tribunals.
9. Mr X has raised concerns about the Council’s handling of his appeal with London Tribunals including that it failed to disclose information, did not take into account relevant considerations and made an irrational assessment of his case without properly considering it. But the exclusion set out at Paragraph 4 is broad and prevents us from investigating these matters, which Mr X has raised with London Tribunals as part of the appeals process. They are in any event too closely linked to the appeals process and the outcome of Mr X’s appeal for us to investigate separately.
10. While I appreciate Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s escalation of the case this is entirely in accordance with the usual process and does not amount to fault. London Tribunals dismissed Mr X’s appeal and ordered Mr X to pay the outstanding charges but he did not. The Council was therefore entitled to increase the amount of the charge and, in the event it remains unpaid, it may apply to the court to register the unpaid PCN as a debt.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We cannot investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns the Council’s actions in relation to a PCN against which he has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman