Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to challenge the penalty charge notice at London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council for a moving traffic contravention. He says the Council failed to properly consider and respond to his representations within the required time of 56 days. He also complains the Council did not send him a written warning before issuing a PCN.

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. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for moving traffic contraventions. When a council identifies a contravention it will issue a PCN to the owner/registered keeper by post. This will detail the amount of the fine and the motorist’s right of appeal, firstly to the council itself and then to a Tribunal.
9. Mr X says the Council failed to follow the correct processes and to meet the required timescales for dealing with his representations against the PCN. However, his complaint is based on the misunderstanding that the PCN was issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004, whereas the Council actually issued it under the London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act (LLAA) 2003. The requirements of the Traffic Management Act 2004 did not therefore apply.
10. The LLAA 2003 does not require councils to respond to representations within any set timescales or to send written warnings before issuing a PCN. London Tribunals website sets out the expectations for councils dealing with representations against PCNs issued for moving traffic contraventions and this states “The adjudicators have decided that a Enforcement Authority should normally respond to representations within 3 months.”
11. The Council met this timescale in Mr X’s case and I am satisfied it considered Mr X’s representations properly. While I appreciate Mr X was disappointed with its decision not to cancel the PCN it was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
12. Had Mr X wished to dispute the PCN further, including on the grounds the contravention did not occur, it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals. The Council’s notice of rejection clearly sets out Mr X’s right to appeal to London Tribunals and explained the process for doing so. Mr X acknowledged his right of appeal but chose instead to complain about the Council’s handling of the case. That was his choice. He has neither paid the PCN nor appealed and the Council has therefore escalated the case in accordance with the statutory process and there is no evidence of fault in its actions.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman