Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the Council ignored his evidence regarding a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). He has evidence to show he paid for his parking.

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 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)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the correspondence about the PCN. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council issued Mr X with a PCN for parking without displaying a ticket. Mr X challenged the fine and sent a parking receipt. The Council rejected his challenge and said he had paid for parking at a different location. The Council gave Mr X another chance to pay the fine at the discounted rate. Alternatively, the Council said Mr X could wait for the Notice to Owner (NTO) and make a formal challenge within 28 days. The Council explained that if his formal challenge was refused, he could appeal to the tribunal.
7. The Council issued the NTO. Mr X neither paid nor used the NTO to formally challenge the PCN so the Council issued a charge certificate. Mr X then tried to challenge the fine but the Council told him it was too late. But, the Council gave Mr X another chance to pay at the reduced rate.
8. Mr X did not pay so the Council registered the debt in court. The case is now with bailiffs.
9. I will not start an investigation because Mr X could have used the NTO to formally challenge the PCN and then appeal to the tribunal. The tribunal would have considered Mr X’s submission that he paid for the parking. If the tribunal agreed, it would have cancelled the fine. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal because the tribunal is the appropriate organisation to consider PCN appeals.
10. I appreciate Mr X finds the bailiff action stressful, but this reflects the next stage in the process when someone has not followed the statutory process and has neither paid nor appealed.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman