Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice he received for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged parking contravention. Mr B says the signs in this location were misleading and the Council has made changes to the signage since he paid this PCN. Mr B would like the Council to apologise and refund the £35 he paid to cancel this PCN.

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 Act 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. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. A motorist may pay a PCN to cancel it. Or, the motorist may follow the statutory representations and appeals process to challenge a PCN. This involves the motorist making formal representations to the local authority after receiving a Notice to Owner. If the local authority rejects these representations, the motorist may put in an appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (for authorities outside London).
8. The Tribunal is independent and has the power to cancel a PCN. The process is free to use and relatively straightforward. We generally expect motorists to use this process if they consider a PCN was wrongly issued.
9. Mr B paid this PCN after the Council rejected his informal representations. Rather than pay this PCN, Mr B could have waited for the Council to send him a Notice to Owner and then put in formal representations.
10. If the Council again rejected Mr B’s representations, he would have had the opportunity to put in an appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
11. The Tribunal would have considered whether this PCN was correctly issued including whether the road markings and signs in this location were clear about the restrictions in place.
12. I find it was reasonable for Mr B to do this. The Tribunal was in the best position to decide the issue complained about.
13. So, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to put in an appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman