Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about procedural impropriety in the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice as Mr X could have reasonably appealed on this ground to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to serve him with a Notice of Rejection, to his appeal against a penalty charge notice (PCN), within the statutory time frame of 56 days. A such, Mr X considers the Council should cancel the PCN.

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 mechanism for motorists to challenge PCNs. One of the appeal grounds for appeal is ‘procedural impropriety’. This is what Mr X alleges, and he could have made an appeal to the independent tribunal, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT), on this basis. We are not another level of appeal nor are we empowered to make the decisions the TPT can. As such, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have used his statutory appeal right, and we will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have appealed to the TPT.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman