Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. It would be reasonable to expect the complainant to use the statutory representations and appeals procedure provided in law.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) wrongly issued him with a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) as he says he did not park and TfL’s evidence does not prove this. Mr X wants TfL to cancel the PCN.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
3. 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. If the person has already appealed we have no power to investigate. (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 from the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X is unhappy as he says TfL’s evidence does not support the PCN that it issued to him. Mr X says he was not parked at the location but was waiting to allow pedestrians to cross.
7. The law provides an appeal process Mr X can use to challenge the PCN, ultimately to independent parking adjudicators at London Tribunals. They can decide if the PCN is valid or whether it should be cancelled. We are not empowered to do this. It is reasonable therefore to expect Mr X to appeal to the Tribunal.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint because it would be reasonable for the complainant to use the representations and appeals procedure provided in law.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman