Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not send Mr X a notice of rejection to his appeal against a parking penalty charge notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have asked the court at the Traffic Enforcement Centre to consider his case.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not send a notice of rejection after he appealed a parking penalty charge notice (PCN). Instead, Mr X says the Council sent him a charge certificate. Mr X says this has caused him time and trouble and worry.

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 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)
4. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Parliament has provided a procedure for motorists to challenge the enforcement of PCNs when something may have gone wrong in the process. In Mr X’s case, once the Council sent him an order for recovery, (the next notice after a charge certificate) the law allowed him to ask the court at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) to consider his case that the Council did not send him a Notice of Rejection (NoR). We are not another level of appeal and are not empowered to make the decisions the TEC can. It is reasonable therefore to expect Mr X to have used the court remedy available to him, and we will not therefore investigate.
8. I recognise Mr X’s frustration when he says he has tried to pursue this with the Council but we will not investigate this aspect of the complaint. This is because, as above, the appropriate way for Mr X to challenge this matter was with the TEC and any fault by the Council in not responding to Mr X’s queries did not cause him a level of injustice therefore that would warrant our further involvement.
9. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have asked the court at the TEC to consider his case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman