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 is reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

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 Council has not given proper consideration to the special reasons why he had to park in this location for a short period and has refused to consider his complaint. Mr B would like the Council to review this PCN and to consider the impact of parking restrictions on people undertaking important responsibilities.

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. Mr B may use this process to challenge this PCN. I find it is reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to London Tribunals if needed, and Mr B says he intends to do this. So, we will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that this PCN was wrongly issued.
10. The Council has told Mr B it will not consider a complaint under its corporate complaints procedure about a PCN which is still being challenged using the statutory representations and appeals procedure. We would not criticise a local authority for not accepting a complaint in such circumstances. So, an investigation solely into the Council’s handling of Mr B’s complaint is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman