Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about several parking penalty charge notices as Mr X appealed to the independent tribunal and the matter is therefore no longer within our remit.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council sent him several parking penalty charge notices (PCNs). He says the Council refused to transfer liability to the responsible party who he says was the person who privately rented his vehicle.
2. Mr X says the Council correctly accepted his representations for one PCN and cancelled the charge. But, he complains the Council rejected his representations against six subsequent PCNs without sufficient explanation. He says the supporting documents he sent the Council was the same for each PCN challenge, which included the private rental agreement containing an indemnity clause.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended)
5. 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)
6. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X complains about seven PCNs issued by the Council. He says the Council accepted his representations against one of the PCNs, which led to it transferring liability to the person who had privately rented his car. Mr X complains the Council rejected his representations against six subsequent PCNs without explanation.
10. Mr X appealed against three of the PCNs to an independent adjudicator at London Tribunals. The adjudicator refused Mr X’s appeal because Mr X was a private individual and not a vehicle hire firm, meaning liability could not be transferred. The adjudicator confirmed the contraventions had taken place and the PCNs were correctly issued.
11. I recognise Mr X remains unhappy about the Council’s actions but, as per paragraph four, as he appealed to London Tribunals about these PCNs we no longer have any remit to investigate.
12. After the Council rejected Mr X’s representations against the three latest PCNs, Mr X also had the right to appeal these rejections to London Tribunals. London Tribunals was set up specifically to deal with disputes about PCNs issued within Greater London. I have seen no good reasons why Mr X could not appeal to London Tribunals. So, we will not investigate the complaint about these PCNs.
13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council rejected his representations against six subsequent PCNs without sufficient explanation. It is not a good use of our limited resources to investigate the Council’s handling of Mr X’s representations alone when we cannot investigate the substantive matter. Further, any injustice related to this matter is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The substantive injustice to Mr X was the PCNs and, as explained, we cannot investigate the PCNs where the Council has rejected his representations.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We cannot investigate this complaint about several parking penalty charge notices as Mr X appealed to the independent tribunal and the matter is therefore no longer within our remit.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman