Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to use the process set out in law to challenge them.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council wrongly issued her with three parking penalty charge notices (PCNs). She says this has caused her significant stress.

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.
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council gave Miss X three PCNs.. Miss X says there were no signs properly explaining parking restrictions at the location where she parked.
9. The Council cancelled the first PCN when Miss X made representations. This is part of the legal process for challenging PCNs. The Council dealt with Miss X’s substantive concern by cancelling this PCN. That resolved the main injustice to Miss X. It would be disproportionate for us to investigate the issuing of this PCN and is unlikely we could add anything significant by investigating.
10. The Council rejected Miss X’s informal representations about the other two PCNS. If Miss X disagreed with those decisions, the law allowed her to challenge the PCNs further by waiting for the Council to send her a Notice to Owner. She could then make formal representations to the Council. If the Council were to rejects Miss X’s representations again, she could appeal to the tribunals.
11. This is the process set out in law to challenge a PCN, so we normally expect people to use it. Miss X is able to argue her case. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to use the legal process.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. It would be disproportionate to investigate the first PCN as Miss X used the legal process and it is unlikely we could achieve significantly more. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to use the legal process to challenge the other PCNs.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman