Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation and it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to approach the London Tribunals if she wishes to challenge the penalty.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council has rejected her representations against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Miss Y says she was driving to her workplace at short notice, and the contravention means she has effectively been charged for going to work.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Miss Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss Y says she received a PCN while she was driving to work. She made representations to the Council, explaining that she had driven down the road to attend her workplace at short notice. She provided a letter from her employer to support this. The Council considered Miss Y’s representations, but rejected them, as it did not consider the circumstances to be enough to mitigate the contravention. It explained its reasons for this in response to Miss Y’s representations. Miss Y then approached us.
8. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. As the Council considered the reasons Miss Y put forward in mitigation of the contravention. It has explained why it decided to reject them with reference to relevant information, such as signage in the area and the traffic controls involved. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify investigation.
9. It is now for Miss Y to decide if she wishes to appeal further in the PCN process. The Council provided information about this with its rejection of her representations. As appealing is free and reasonable adjustment can be made where necessary, we consider it reasonable to expect Miss Y to use her right to appeal if she wishes. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation and it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to approach the London Tribunals if she wishes to challenge the penalty.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman