Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that Mr Y’s vehicle was towed away without proper notice as it is reasonable to expect the complainant to appeal to the London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains, on behalf of Mr Y, a family member, that the Council removed Mr Y’s vehicle from a shared-use parking bay for residents and visitors less that two hours after it was first parked. She says the Council failed to place a visible Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on the vehicle and give Mr Y any notice before towing the vehicle. Mrs X says the Council failed to respond to her complaints.

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. 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 it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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. 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 the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Parliament has provided an appeal mechanism by which Mr Y can have his case against his vehicle being towed heard. Mr Y has the right to appeal to an independent body called London Tribunals. We are not empowered to hear appeals about PCNs and the associated removal of vehicles. It is reasonable to expect Mr Y to use this appeal right. We will not investigate.
9. The Council has provided a response to Mrs X’s complaint and explained about Mr Y’s appeal rights. It sent her information about how Mr Y may first challenge the PCN and the associated removal of the vehicle through its formal appeals process. It is reasonable to expect Mr Y to challenge the Council’s decision through its formal appeals process first and then take the matter to the London Tribunal for its consideration if he remains dissatisfied.
10. Mrs X says she has experienced further frustration as she feels the Council failed to properly respond to her complaint. It is not proportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint handling alone when we are not investigating the substantive matter. In any case, the Council explained to Mrs X that it did not receive her complaints because they were sent to an incorrect email.
11. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint that Mr Y’s vehicle was towed away without proper notice as it is reasonable to expect the complainant to appeal to the London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman