Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a parking penalty charge notice. This is because he could have followed the statutory process and appealed to a tribunal. And it was reasonable to expect Mr X to have followed this process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) issued at a leisure centre. He complains about poor signage and the process for accessing the three hours of free parking at the leisure centre. As Mr X did not have access to the mobile application to register for free parking, he entered the leisure centre to register his details instead. But, during the time it took to register his details, Mr X says a civil enforcement officer issued the PCN. Mr X has since paid the PCN of £55.

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. 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.
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:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. A motorist may pay a PCN to cancel it. Or, the motorist may follow the statutory representations and appeals process to challenge a PCN. This involves the motorist making formal representations to the local authority after receiving a Notice to Owner. If the local authority rejects these representations, the motorist may put in an appeal to the London Tribunals (for authorities inside London).
9. The Tribunal is independent and has the power to cancel a PCN. The process is free to use and relatively straightforward. We generally expect motorists to use this process if they consider a PCN was wrongly issued.
10. I recognise Mr X remains unhappy about the PCN, but he had the right to challenge it via the statutory appeal process that was available to him, ultimately to the independent London Tribunals. It is reasonable to expect him to have followed this process; we are not another level of appeal and cannot make the decisions of the London Tribunals.
11. Mr X paid the PCN at the discounted rate on the same day he sent informal representations to the Council. The Council subsequently rejected the informal representations and provided reasons for this. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council should reinstate his appeal rights to the London Tribunals given he made informal representations. Mr X paid the PCN, which meant the PCN was cancelled and the Council could not issue the Notice to Owner. It is the Notice to Owner that ordinarily would give the motorist the chance to make formal representations. Mr X also wants the Council to install improved signage at the leisure centre car park. These are not outcomes that we can achieve. The substantive injustice to Mr X was the PCN and as explained, this could have been remedied by way of following the statutory appeal process.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a parking penalty charge notice. This is because he could have followed the statutory process and appealed to a tribunal. And it was reasonable to expect Mr X to have followed this process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman