Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council issued him with multiple Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) which he said he is not liable for.
2. Mr X said this has caused him emotional difficulties and led him to feel financially strained.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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)
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 the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complained he received multiple PCNs despite not being the legal owner of the vehicle in question. Mr X said despite explaining this to the Council, it has held him responsible for the penalties.
9. The evidence at hand suggests the Council have sent the PCNs to the address of the registered keeper of the vehicle. This is in line with the legislation used by the Council to issue the PCN and therefore there is not enough evidence of fault here to warrant our involvement.
10. Mr Y has a right to appeal to the London Tribunals should he wish to pursue the matter of liability. The London Tribunals can consider how the Council dealt with Mr X’s representations, and whether it followed the correct process. If it finds that it did not consider his representations properly, it can then consider the issues Mr X has raised as the reasons why the PCN is either invalid or should not be enforced.
11. If Mr X has passed the appeal period for any of the PCNs, he has a right to submit a late witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), asking it to allow him to go back in the process to an earlier stage, including potentially reinstating his right of appeal against the PCN to the Council initially and then the London Tribunals.
12. This is free in the initial stages and reasonable adjustments can be made where necessary for access to the service. Additionally, Mr X has not provided any other reason why he cannot, therefore it is reasonable to expect him to use right to appeal and this is why we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman