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

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his challenges to a penalty charge notice (PCN). He says the Council failed to provide evidence of the alleged contravention, changed the contravention details and did not properly consider or address the points he raised in his challenges. He wants the Council to revoke the PCN and pay him compensation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them. When a council issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal; appeals at this stage are known as ‘informal challenges’.
8. If the motorist submits an informal challenge to a PCN and the Council decides not to accept them, it will write to the motorist and explain why. If the motorist accepts the Council’s reasons they may pay the PCN; if not, they may wait for a ‘notice to owner’. This provides a further opportunity for the owner of the vehicle to pay the charge or make ‘formal representations’ against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to London Tribunals.
9. Mr X’s injustice stems from the issue of the PCN, which he disputes, and the Council’s handling of his representations, which he says failed to address the points he raised in his challenges. In this case it would have been reasonable for him to make formal representations to the Council and, if it rejected them, appeal to London Tribunals. The Council’s correspondence set out the process and Mr X’s right of appeal on several occasions and I have seen nothing to show it would not be reasonable for Mr X to have used it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to make representations to the Council and appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman