Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to make representations to the Council and appeal to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) the Council issued him. He says a third party parked his car on the road where there were no clear parking restrictions and the Council’s civil enforcement officer told him the PCN would be cancelled.
2. Mr X says the matter has affected his mental health. He wants the Council to cancel the PCN and pay him compensation.

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. 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)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. When a council issues a PCN, the driver can pay the fine or challenge it informally. If the council rejects an informal challenge, the driver can either pay or wait for a Notice to Owner and make a formal challenge. If the council rejects the formal challenge, the driver has the right to appeal to an independent tribunal. If the driver has still not paid the PCN, did not formally challenge the PCN, or the council rejects the formal challenge, the council can issue a charge certificate which increases the fine by 50%.
9. The evidence I have seen shows the Council sent Mr X a Notice to Owner which gave him 28 days to pay or formally challenge the PCN. Mr X did not formally challenge the PCN within the time limit and therefore lost any opportunity to appeal to an independent tribunal. The Council has now issued a charge certificate.
10. If Mr X had followed the statutory process and made a formal challenge, the Council could have considered his arguments. If it rejected the challenge, Mr X could then have had the right to appeal to an independent tribunal. As explained in paragraph 4, we cannot usually investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal unless it would be unreasonable to expect them to use this right.
11. I see no reason why it would have been unreasonable for Mr X to follow the statutory appeals process. This was the appropriate way to challenge the PCN. Allowing the time limit for challenging to pass does not provide sufficient grounds for us to investigate the complaint instead. The Ombudsman is not a substitute for the statutory appeals process.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he could have challenged the PCN through the statutory appeal process, and it would have been reasonable for him to do so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman