Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged moving traffic contravention. This is because Mr B appealed to London Tribunals which found the contravention took place. And, the Council considered Mr B’s mitigating circumstances when it responded to his representations.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged moving traffic contravention. Mr B says the road layout in this area is complicated and the restrictions are not being managed fairly. Mr B would like the PCN to be cancelled and for a review to be undertaken of the road layout in this area.

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 cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr B and London Tribunals’ decision on Mr B’s appeal against this PCN, which is available online.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr B put in an appeal against this PCN to London Tribunals. The Tribunal found Mr B did not have a valid ground of appeal and the contravention occurred. We cannot investigate whether this contravention took place because Mr B appealed to the Tribunal.
8. The Tribunal could not consider mitigating circumstances when it decided Mr B’s appeal.
9. But, the Council considered Mr B’s mitigating circumstances when it responded to his representations. It was for the Council to decide whether to use its discretion to cancel this PCN due to mitigating circumstances. It is not our role to tell the Council it should have accepted Mr B’s representations and cancelled this PCN.
10. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because he appealed to the Tribunal and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into the Council’s handling of Mr B’s representations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman