Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to cancel a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because Mrs X had a right of appeal which it would have been reasonable for her to use and the injustice she claims is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The Council issued Mrs X a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for failing to display her Blue Badge. Mrs X challenged the PCN with the Council but it declined to cancel the PCN. She complains the Council applied its parking policies too rigidly and did not properly consider that it was an honest, first-time mistake.
2. Mrs X has now paid the PCN at the discounted rate of £35 and wants the Council to refund her payment. She says the experience has caused her stress and financial pressure. She also believes the appeals process is unfair and discourages people from challenging PCNs because of the financial risk involved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. If a motorist breaks parking rules, they might receive a fine. This fine is called a PCN. The motorist has 28 days to pay the fine or appeal it if they disagree with it. An appeal at this stage is called an ‘informal challenge’. The fine is usually halved if it is paid within 14 days, or within 21 days if the notice was sent by post.
10. If a council rejects an ‘informal challenge’ the motorist can either pay the PCN, often at a discounted rate, or wait for the ‘notice to owner’ to make formal representations against it. If the Council rejects a motorist’s formal representations, the motorist can appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Any unsuccessful appeal at the formal stages usually requires payment of the full PCN amount.
11. Mrs X chose not to appeal against the PCN at the formal stages because she was concerned about the risk of having to pay the full amount of £70 if her appeal was unsuccessful. She says this was a financial burden for her, particularly due to her disability and unemployment. However, she believes the Council did not properly consider the basis of her challenge and that it was wrong not to cancel the PCN.
12. As set out at Paragraph 5, we do not usually investigate a complaint where someone has a right of appeal. This is because the law says that complaints about such matters fall outside our jurisdiction to investigate. The only exception to this is where we do not consider it would be reasonable to expect the person to appeal.
13. The PCN statutory appeals process is free, relatively informal and simple to use. Whilst I acknowledge there is some financial risk involved in appealing the decision, I am satisfied it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal in this case. The appeals process is set out in law and applies to everyone using it. Therefore, I do not consider that the risk of the fine increasing provides sufficient grounds to exercise our discretion to investigate this complaint.
14. I accept that paying £35 may have had some financial impact on Mrs X. However, we must focus our resources on complaints where the injustice is the most significant. In this case, I do not consider the amount of the fine or the injustice Mrs X claims to be significant enough to justify our involvement, especially as Mrs X had the chance to appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for her to exercise her appeal rights and the injustice she claims is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman