Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for him to have used his right of appeal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) the Council issued him for parking near a dropped kerb. He believes the PCN is unfair and says he did not formally challenge the PCN as he did not understand the appeals process clearly. The Council has now escalated the case and passed it to enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover payment from him.

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.
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside of London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council issued Mr X a PCN for parking near a dropped kerb. Mr X informally challenged the PCN but the Council rejected his challenge. He did not pay the PCN so the Council progressed it further and issued Mr X a Notice to Owner. This allowed Mr X to make formal representations but Mr X did not do so. He also did not pay the PCN so the Council escalated the case and passed it to bailiffs to recover payment from him.
9. The evidence I have seen shows:
• The Council’s responses to Mr X’s informal challenge provided information about the appeals process and correctly set out how to further appeal if he disagreed with the Council’s decision.
• The Notice to Owner provided information about the appeals process and confirmed that if the Council rejected any formal representations the notice of rejection would explain how to appeal to an independent Adjudicator.
• Notice of Enforcement letters issued to Mr X contained information about potential enforcement action if he did not pay. The bailiffs also sent a reminder letter to Mr X prior to visiting his home.
10. On balance, I am satisfied the Council properly handled the case and clearly and accurately explained to Mr X how to formally appeal against the PCN, along with the consequences of not paying. Therefore, the exclusion in paragraph 4 applies and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to make representations against the PCN and appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, if he wished to challenge it. We are not an alternative to this process and it is not for us to decide if the Council should cancel the PCN.
11. I acknowledge Mr X says he did not understand the appeals process but this was not the result of any fault by the Council. If Mr X had any confusion about the appeals process then it would have been reasonable for him to contact the Council for clarification. I see no reason why he could not have done this.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for him to make representations against the PCN and appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman