Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s issue and handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal if he wanted to challenge the penalty charge notice itself, and the Council’s delay in locating his payment did not cause significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. He says the Council’s signs were not sufficiently clear that parking restrictions applied at the relevant time and wants the Council to cancel the PCN. He further complains he paid the PCN but the Council claims it did not receive his payment. He says the matter caused him stress and disruption and he has spent considerable time speaking with his bank to obtain evidence to prove he paid the PCN on time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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 considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The validity of the PCN is a matter for the appeals process. The evidence I have seen shows Mr X was aware of the process and that it would have been reasonable for him to use it had he wanted to challenge the PCN. I will not therefore exercise my discretion to investigate Mr X’s concerns about the validity and fairness of the PCN itself.
9. The Council has now located Mr X’s payment for the PCN, which was complicated by a chargeback made by his bank, and confirms the case is closed. I appreciate Mr X suffered some inconvenience and went to time and effort to obtain evidence to show his bank had rebilled the payment. I also accept the Council could have identified the payment and confirmed closure of the case sooner. But we do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
10. While I understand Mr X suffered some injustice as a result of delay by the Council in locating his payment I do not consider this is significant enough to warrant further investigation. The Council placed a hold on the case while it investigated Mr X’s concerns and did not take any formal action to escalate the case or pursue the unpaid PCN via the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. Had Mr X wished to challenge the PCN it would have been reasonable for him to appeal. Although the Council delayed in locating Mr X’s payment I do not consider this caused him significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman