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

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council has wrongly refused to accept a Bill of Exchange as payment for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) without good reason, leading to the progression of a penalty to the enforcement stage and has failed to properly respond to his complaint.

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.
5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. In this case it is disputed between Mr Y and the Council, whether the Bill of Exchange is sufficient as payment for the PCN. During this dispute the Council has progressed the penalty through to the enforcement stage.
8. Mr Y has the right to appeal the PCN enforcement to the London Tribunals if he wishes, arguing that he has already made payment for the PCN at an earlier stage. It will then be for the Tribunals to decide the outcome.
9. Usually, a person must make an appeal to the tribunal within 28 days of a Notice of Rejection to representations being issued. Mr Y may therefore need to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) to seek permission to appeal to the London Tribunals after the deadline. However, this would be something which Mr Y may wish to approach the London Tribunals to confirm.
10. The London Tribunals is usually free in the initial stages and can make reasonable adjustments if necessary. I would therefore consider it reasonable for Mr Y to use this right of appeal. We will not investigate this complaint.
11. Mr Y has also complained about the way the Council has responded to and dealt with his complaint, which he says has been unfair and lacked transparency. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
12. As we are not investigating the substantive issue in this complaint, we will not investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman