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

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council, which he disputes. He also complains he did not receive a response to his informal challenges to the 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. The validity of the PCN, and the question of whether there were grounds to cancel it, are matters for the appeals process. Mr X confirms he received the ‘notice to owner’ from the Council and he could therefore have made formal representations against the PCN and appealed to London Tribunals if he was not happy with the Council’s response. I have seen no good reasons why Mr X could not have followed this process and I will not therefore exercise my discretion to investigate the matter further.
9. While Mr X complains he did not receive a response to his informal challenge, the Council has provided both him and us with a copy of the response and this addresses the points he made in his challenge. We cannot prove the response was not sent or determine the reason Mr X did not receive it, to show the Council was at fault.
10. We also cannot say any fault caused Mr X significant injustice. This is because it is clear the Council does not consider the points Mr X made as part of his challenge warrant cancellation of the PCN and it is not for us to say they do; we are not an appeal body and this is a matter for London Tribunals as set out above.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman