Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council issued him a penalty charge notice (PCN) for stopping in a bus stop. Mr X is a private-hire vehicle driver and says he was dropping off a customer with a child and stopped in the bus stop only for a short time as it was safer. He appealed against the PCN to London Tribunals but it dismissed his appeal and ordered him to pay at the full rate of £130.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X accepts he stopped in a bus stop but says he had his reasons for doing so. He appealed against the PCN to London Tribunals but London Tribunals could not consider his reasons in deciding whether to cancel the PCN. This is because liability is strict and the law allows it only to consider certain grounds of appeal listed in the legislation. Where the evidence shows a motorist has committed a contravention, but the motorist argues there were good reasons to do so, London Tribunals must dismiss the appeal.
6. Because London Tribunals could not consider the basis of Mr X’s appeal I do not consider the use of his appeal right bars us from investigating the complaint. His appeal was effectively misconceived as there was no prospect it would or could be successful.
7. The Council, as the body which issued the PCN, is not bound by the same restrictions and must consider any reasons put to it in deciding whether to cancel the PCN. I have therefore obtained a copy of Mr X’s representations and the Council’s response and having reviewed this information I am satisfied the Council acted properly in dealing with this matter.
8. Mr X put forward his explanation for stopping in the bus stop and the Council explained its reasons for not cancelling the PCN. The decision was one the Council was entitled to make and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it was made. We cannot therefore question it.
9. Mr X says he cannot afford to pay the £130 London Tribunals ordered him to pay and he would like to pay the PCN at the discounted rate of £65. But the discounted rate applies for a set period and Mr X did not pay within this time. There is therefore no requirement for the Council to accept payment at a lower rate and because Mr X did not pay the amount owed the Council has escalated the case as it is entitled to do. The Council has now registered the unpaid PCN as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court and if Mr X is unable to pay the full amount owed he should contact the Council’s enforcement agents (bailiffs) to ask to pay in instalments.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman