Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it was reasonable to expect Mr X to use the statutory representations and appeals procedure as provided in law.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Mr X says due to an error he could not submit representations. Mr X wants the Council to ignore statutory timescales and consider his representations.

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. 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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal 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 appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. London Tribunals (the Tribunal) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Council’s follow a set procedure for PCNs. The Council will issue a PCN to the owner/registered keeper by post detailing the amount of the fine and rights of appeal - first to the Council and then to a Tribunal (in this case London Tribunals). The motorist has 28 days from date of notice to pay or make representations against the PCN.
9. Mr X was issued a PCN for using a car in a restricted zone. Mr X says he tried to make representations to the Council. Its system normally allows 31 days for this – so over the 28 days referred to above. Mr X tried to submit representations 35 days after the PCN issue date. Mr X says the online system said he had one more day before the PCN went to the Charge Certificate stage, but the system would not accept his representations.
10. Mr X made a complaint to the Council saying he could not make representations because of an online error. He asked the Council to put a hold on the PCN and to not issue a Charge Certificate. The Council responded to Mr X. It said the process to dispute a PCN is defined in law by the Traffic Management Act 2004, and it could not intervene in this. The Council said Mr X had not put in representations within the allowed time. The Council explained Mr X could pay the PCN or submit a Statutory Declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) if he felt one of the relevant grounds applied.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council issued a ‘notice to owner’ setting out Mr X’s right to make representations and the timeframe allowed for doing so. I see no fault in the Council’s issuing of the PCN or the information provided. Mr X did not make representations in time. His attempt to make representations was outside the 28 and 31 days referred to above. Mr X was therefore late trying to make representations. This is the case regardless of the information given to Mr X online about him having one more day to do so.
12. Based on the evidence available there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the handling of the PCN to warrant us investigating. I consider it was reasonable for Mr X to submit on-time representation and to use his appeal rights if refused. The complaints process does not provide an alternative to this. The Council has explained the options available to Mr X, and it is open to him to decide how to proceed.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and it was reasonable for him to have used the appeals process set out in law.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman