Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council wrongly increased the penalty for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) despite him not receiving a Notice of Rejection. It also did not reduce the charge after Mr Y told the Council he had not received the correspondence. He is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint.
2. Mr Y feels the situation was unfair and says the issue has caused him distress and worry.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
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. 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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
7. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Ms Y has a right to appeal the PCN further to the London Tribunals if she wishes. The London Tribunals can consider how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s representations against the PCN, and whether it followed the correct process. If it finds that it did not consider his representations properly, it can then consider the issues Mr Y has raised as the reasons why the PCN is either invalid or should not be enforced.
10. Usually, a person must make an appeal to the tribunal within 28 days of a Notice of Rejection to representations being issued. However, as Mr Y says he did not receive this notice, he will need to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) to seek permission to appeal to the London Tribunals after the deadline. He can do this by making a late statutory declaration to the TEC using the forms available online.
11. Both the TEC and the London Tribunals is free in the initial stages and can make reasonable adjustments if necessary. I would therefore consider it reasonable for Mr Y to use his right of appeal.
12. Further, the tribunal has been set up for the purpose of considering the type of issues Mr Y has raised and has the power itself to cancel the PCN if warranted. It is therefore better placed than the Ombudsman, who can only ask the Council to consider cancelling the PCN, to consider this complaint. We will therefore not investigate.
13. As we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman