Summary: We will not investigate Mr D’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for a parking contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr D to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains the Council did not respond to his representations within the required 56 days after he received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged parking contravention. Mr D says the Council then ignored his correspondence about this and he paid the PCN because he was concerned the charge would increase. Mr D would like the Council to apologise and refund the £70 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. 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 D and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. When the Council responded to Mr D’s informal representations about the signage in this location, the Council advised Mr D he could pay this PCN at the discounted rate or wait for the Council to issue a Notice to Owner. The Council said Mr D would then be able to put in formal representations, and if needed, appeal to the Adjudicator. The Council also said it would not issue further correspondence before the issue of a Notice to Owner or if Mr D paid this PCN.
8. Rather than pay this PCN, Mr D could have waited for a Notice to Owner and challenged this PCN further by putting in formal representations and if needed, by appealing to London Tribunals.
9. Mr D could have appealed to the Tribunal on the ground of procedural impropriety and/or because he did not consider the signage in this location was clear to motorists. I find it was reasonable for Mr D to do this, so we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr D’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman