Summary: We will not investigate an inaccuracy in the Council’s letter about a parking penalty charge. This is mainly because Mr X has used his right to appeal to a tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council made an inaccurate statement in its response to his challenge against a penalty charge notice (PCN). The Council acknowledged it made an error in the wording.
2. Mr X complains the Council then passed the same inaccurate statement to London Tribunals when he appealed against the PCN.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)).
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (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 the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council acknowledged and apologised for a mistake in its rejection of Mr X’s challenge to the PCN. The Council says the mistake did not invalidate the PCN. It is unlikely we would seek more than this apology if we investigated. It is not for us to decide how this matter affects whether the Council should have cancelled the PCN. That is for the tribunal. So it would not be a good use of our limited resources to investigate this.
9. Because Mr X used his right of appeal against the PCN, the law prevents us investigating the Council’s handling of any part of the appeal process. The tribunal can consider Mr X’s concerns about evidence the Council submitted to it and decide what to do about that. We cannot become involved in the appeal process.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s letter to him because it would be disproportionate given the Council’s apology. We cannot investigate the complaint about the Council sending the same letter to the tribunal. That is for the tribunal to deal with.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman