Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a moving traffic penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used their appeal right to the independent tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council unlawfully transferred liability for a moving traffic penalty charge notice (PCN) from the vehicle’s registered keeper to him as the hirer of it on a long-term lease. Mr X wants the Council to cancel the PCN and to review its procedures regarding PCNs issued to vehicles on long term leases and how it deals with complaints about its handling of PCNs.

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)
4. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X says the Council acted unlawfully in transferring a PCN to him as it did not obtain a copy of the hire agreement from the hire company. Mr X says this was required in law.
8. Mr X made representations against the PCN to the Council, but it rejected his case. At this point, it was open to Mr X to make a formal appeal to London Tribunals. Mr X did not do this, but submitted further information to the Council, in support of his case against the PCN. Mr X says the Council refused to engage with this and enforcement of the PCN continued. Mr X paid the PCN as he says by this time, he was too late to appeal to the Tribunal.
9. While I recognise that Mr X says he gave the Council the opportunity for it to prove its compliance with the law, after it had rejected his appeal against the PCN, the correct way to proceed would have been to make an appeal to the Tribunal. This is the procedure provided by Parliament to enable motorists to challenge PCNs and the independent adjudicator at the Tribunal would have considered Mr X’s case and decided if the PCN should have stood. We are not another level of appeal and cannot make the decisions of the Tribunal. It is reasonable therefore to expect Mr X to have used his appeal right to the Tribunal, and we will not therefore investigate.
10. It is unlikely we will find fault by the Council for refusing to deal with Mr X’s representations against the PCN, via its complaints procedure, when the PCN was live and the appeal procedure was open to Mr X. We will not therefore investigate this aspect of the complaint as a separate matter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have used his appeal right to London Tribunals against the PCN.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman