Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a Penalty Charge Notice because Mr X has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals. We will not investigate his concerns about the Council’s failure to accept the Tribunal’s decision as there is not enough evidence of fault and the issue does not cause him significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s issue and handling of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). He is also unhappy with the Council’s refusal to accept the Adjudicator’s decision on his appeal against the PCN and about the Council’s handling of his complaint. He says the Council’s actions have caused him distress and wasted time and he wants it to pay him compensation.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (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 Mr X.
7. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council issued Mr X’s grandmother (Ms Y) a PCN for a parking contravention in 2024. Mr X contacted the Council about the PCN as he had been driving the vehicle at the time and Ms Y was unwell. The Council later reissued the PCN in Mr X’s name and Mr X appealed to London Tribunals. London Tribunals upheld the appeal and cancelled the PCN.
9. Mr X later made a complaint to the Council about the handling of his case. He also accused the Council of harassing and exploiting Ms Y.
10. The Council accepted the Tribunal’s decision but said it did not agree with the reasons given. The Council reviewed its procedures and was satisfied it had acted correctly in issuing and pursuing the PCN.
11. Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council’s response. He wants the Council to apologise for its actions and to compensate him for distress and time spent challenging the PCN.

The PCN

12. We cannot investigate any complaint about the Council’s decision to issue the PCN against Mr X, or provide a remedy for this. This is because London Tribunals has already considered the issue through the appeals process and has provided a remedy for it. While we recognise the appeal decision may not remedy the full injustice Mr X claims, the law prevents us from investigating a complaint where a person has sought a remedy by way of an appeal to a Tribunal.
13. Additionally, there is no evidence of fault by the Council in its actions after the appeal. The Council is entitled to have its view on whether the appeal decision is correct and there is no suggestion it has failed to comply with it. The fact the Council disagrees with the Tribunal’s reasoning does not, in itself, cause Mr X significant injustice.

The impact of the Council’s actions on Ms Y

14. Mr X has also raised concerns about how the Council pursued the PCN against Ms Y, including its request for details of her medical condition, which he believes was unjustified. Mr X says Ms Y is now deceased.
15. Any injustice resulting from this issue would have been to Ms Y herself. As she has sadly passed away, there is no longer a suitable remedy we could provide for any injustice she may have experienced. For this reason, we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the PCN because he has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals. We will not investigate Mr X’s remaining concerns about the Council’s actions because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to show they caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman