Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to appeal to London Tribunals. Miss X has also now paid the fine at the discounted rate of £55 and this amount is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) she received for a parking contravention. She says she followed the instructions of a council employee when parking to drop off two elderly and vulnerable passengers.
2. Miss X paid the PCN at the discounted rate of £55 but wants the Council to refund her payment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
10. I appreciate Miss X is frustrated she received a PCN but the amount of the PCN is not significant enough to warrant investigation.
11. In any event, had Miss X has wished to challenge the PCN it would have been reasonable for her to use the formal appeals process. The evidence I have seen shows the Council made Miss X aware of this process but Miss X chose instead to pay the PCN at the discounted rate and complain. We are not an alternative to the appeals process and I have seen no good reasons why Miss X could not have appealed in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to appeal to London Tribunals. The injustice she claims is also not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman