Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. The Council issued Mr X a penalty charge notice (PCN) for a parking contravention. Mr X complains he paid for parking but the Council has refused to refund his fee or the cost of the PCN, which he says he felt pressured to pay.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X says he paid for parking, but his payment was delayed for reasons outside his control. He submitted an informal PCN challenge to the Council but the Council rejected it. Mr X could have waited for the Council to issue a ‘notice to owner’ and made formal representations, following which he would have been able to lodge an appeal with London Tribunals. But instead, he paid the PCN at the discounted rate and lost his right to appeal.
9. I have considered the information Mr X provided and I consider it would have been reasonable to expect him to use the appeals process to challenge the issue of the PCN. So the restriction in Paragraph 3 applies.
10. We will not investigate whether the Council should have refunded Mr X’s parking charges as Mr X incurred these after the issue of the PCN and the amount of the charges is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman