Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice he received for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr C to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr C says the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged parking contravention. Mr C says he paid to park in this location and the Council was wrong not to cancel this PCN.

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 Act 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 C.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Rather than pay this PCN, Mr C could have challenged it by waiting for the Council to send him a Notice to Owner and then making formal representations. If the Council rejected Mr C’s formal representations, he would have had the opportunity to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.
8. This is the statutory process for challenging a PCN and we generally expect it to be used. The Tribunal is independent and has the power to cancel a PCN. Also, the process is free and relatively straightforward.
9. I find it was reasonable for Mr C to put in an appeal to London Tribunals. So, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman