Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre and then the London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council mishandled his representations against a Penalty Charge Notice as it would not consider his email correspondence. Mr Y says this meant he was unable to appeal properly and the matter progressed to enforcement by bailiffs. Mr Y feels this was unfair.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
3. 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)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y says he feels he has been unable to access his right of appeal due to the issue he has complained about. However, as the Council has made Mr Y aware, he has a right to submit a statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), asking it to remove the charge certificate for the PCN. This is even if he has paid a bailiff for the penalty.
7. If the TEC accepts Mr Y’s application it can take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the PCN and reinstating Mr Y’s right of appeal against it to the Council initially and then the London Tribunals.
8. The London Tribunals can consider how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s representations, and whether it followed the correct process in considering them. If it finds that it did not consider the representations properly, it can then consider the issues Mr Y has raised as the reasons why the PCN is either invalid or should not be enforced.
9. This is often free in the initial stages and reasonable adjustments can be made where necessary for access to the service. Consequently, as Mr Y has not provided any other reason why he cannot, it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to use his right to appeal if he is unhappy with the Council’s actions and feels his appeal rights have been frustrated. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre and then the London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman