Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about several penalty charge notices. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right of appeal to a tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr X disputes several penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by the Council for parking in a resident permit bay without a valid permit. He disputes them because he says that he had purchased valid visitor vouchers. But, he says the Council failed to tell him that he needed to activate the vouchers for the days the vehicle was parked and, for certain PCNs, its system failed to accept that he had a valid, activated visitor voucher.
2. Mr X says he has been caused stress and put to time and trouble regularly appealing the PCNs. He feels the Council is pushing him to pay for an annual permit, which he says he cannot afford. Mr X says the situation has caused him significant stress because the Council issued the PCNs when he was trying to find parking to support his mother, Ms Y, who uses a wheelchair.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
6. 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; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. In its complaint responses, Slough Borough Council told Mr X that it could not consider his complaint as he had a statutory right of appeal to the independent adjudicator (the Traffic Penalty Tribunal).
10. Every PCN carries a right of appeal and the appeal right in this case is to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. It is not our role to determine the validity of the PCNs. We could not therefore say the Council was at fault for issuing the PCNs or decide whether Mr X had a valid, activated visitor voucher at the time of the contravention. I understand that, for the majority of the PCNs, Mr X has made representations to the Council, but it has rejected these. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right of appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal in these circumstances. It is best placed to consider the underlying matters complained of. So, we will not investigate this complaint.
11. Following an appeal by Mr X to the Council about one of the PCNs, the Council decided to cancel it. So far as this PCN is concerned, there is nothing further an investigation could add. The underlying injustice and remedy sought (that the Council should cancel the PCN) has already been resolved through the Council’s appeals process. We will not investigate this PCN because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
12. Ms Y lives in a different Council area (referred to as Council Two). Mr X complains he had to buy the visitor parking vouchers because there were significant delays in Council Two renewing Ms Y’s Blue Badge. Mr X said Slough Borough Council started issuing PCNs when he tried using the expired Blue Badge during the period of delay. We will not investigate this matter for the following reasons:
1. so far as Mr X’s complaint concerns Slough Borough Council issuing PCNs when he displayed an expired Blue Badge, for the above reasons, it was reasonable to expect Mr X to challenge these PCNs first by making representations to the Council and, if needed, put in an appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal; and,
2. any delays and advice given to Mr X by Council Two fall outside the scope of this complaint brought against Slough Borough Council. It reasonable to expect Ms Y or Mr X to first complain to Council Two about these matters before making a new complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint about several penalty charge notices. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right of appeal to a tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman