Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for a parking contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to London Tribunals. An investigation into the Council’s handling of Mr B’s correspondence after he paid this PCN is not justified.

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 this PCN was issued incorrectly and the signage in this location is misleading. Mr B also complains the Council has not responded to his emails asking for the case to be re-opened and a refund issued after he paid this PCN to stop the charge increasing.

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 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 the authority sends a Notice to Owner. If the local authority rejects these representations, the motorist may put in an appeal to London Tribunals (for authorities in London). A motorist cannot pay a PCN and use this appeal process.
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. Rather than pay this PCN, Mr B could have used this process to challenge this PCN. I find it was reasonable for him to put in an appeal to London Tribunals if needed. So, we will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that this PCN was wrongly issued.
10. Once a PCN has been paid it is cancelled. In such circumstances, we would not normally criticise a local authority for not engaging in further correspondence about whether a PCN was correctly issued. So, an investigation solely into the Council’s handling of Mr B’s correspondence is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals. An investigation into the Council’s handling of Mr B’s correspondence is not justified.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman