Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly enforced a penalty charge notice as he had paid to park as Mr X could have challenged this via an appeal to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council rejected his appeal against a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) despite, he says, him having provided proof of the payment he made to park and the Council having processed that payment. Mr X says there has been procedural misconduct and administrative dishonesty.

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 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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Parliament has provided an appeal process by which Mr X could have challenged the PCN issued to him, ultimately to the independent tribunal, London Tribunals. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have followed this statutory procedure and as such we will not investigate. I have considered Mr X’s broader concerns about alleged procedural misconduct and administrative dishonesty, but I remain of the view that this matter is best dealt with by London Tribunals, and that an investigation by us would not be in the public interest.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have challenged the PCN using the statutory appeal procedure that was open to him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman