Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Mr Y can appeal to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains on behalf of Mr Y that the Council wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and Mr Y was unable to make representations because the Council’s website was not working.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

3. The law 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, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the rest of England. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), part of the county court, considers applications to set the PCN process back where there has been procedural fault.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr Y and the Council and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My Assessment

6. Mr Y complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
7. The Council said that its website was not working temporally but it advised customers could appeal by post. It said it had received Mr X’s postal representations.
8. The Council later rejected Mr X’s representations. It advised Mr X how he could appeal to the London Tribunals.
9. There is no significant injustice to justify our involvement. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to a tribunal.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Mr X can appeal to a Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman