Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of representations against a parking penalty charge notice as it is unlikely we will find it to be at fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council did not properly consider her representations against four parking penalty charge notices (PCNs) she says she incurred whilst her car was broken down. Ms X says she provided a mechanic’s invoice showing the repairs, but the Council failed to consider it.

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 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council considered Ms X’s representations against the PCNs, and a mechanic’s invoice she also sent. It rejected the representations but advised it might re-consider if Ms X sent an invoice which detailed the nature of the breakdown and included the date, time and location, details of the vehicle and description of the repairs. The Council has sent me a copy of the invoice Ms X sent to it with her initial representations, and several of these details were not included. The cases progressed when no further information was supplied, and the Council issued notices to owner to Ms X.
7. At this point, Ms X could have appealed to London Tribunals against the PCNs, citing her mitigating circumstances, that is, that her car had broken down. Ms X did not so this, but it would have been reasonable to expect her to have done so had she wished to challenge the matter further.
8. We will not investigate therefore as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council in how it dealt with Ms X’s representations against the PCNs, and it would have been reasonable, in any case, to expect her to use her statutory right to appeal the PCNs to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely we will find fault and Ms X could have appealed to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman