Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to seek to regain her appeal rights, and then to appeal to a tribunal. Ms X can refer to the Information Commissioner regarding her FOI request

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her PCN and failure to provide a working payment method for parking. She says there was delay, failure to respond to her FOI request, and unfair escalation of charges.

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 could take the matter to court or use 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 go to court or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(6)(a) and (c), 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.
5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X challenged the Council’s PCN because she said that she could not access the parking app to pay.
8. The Council rejected Ms X’s informal representations. It said that Ms X may have had difficulty making payment, but drivers can only park after having paid. It said it had no reports of any problems with the parking app.
9. Ms X made formal representations to the Council which were also rejected. She also made an freedom of information (FOI) request for information about PCNs.
10. The Council then issued a charge certificate which increased the charge to £120.
11. Ms X did not appeal. However, she said the Council had not responded properly about the app not working and had not answered her FOI request.
12. The Council offered Ms X a reduced charge of £80 as a gesture of goodwill but it said she must follow the statutory process if she wished to challenge the PCN.
13. We will not investigate this complaint because it is reasonable to expect Ms X to apply to the TEC to regain her appeal rights. This is the statutory process Ms X can follow to challenge the PCN.
14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to her FOI request. It is reasonable to expect her to refer to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint because it is reasonable to expect Ms X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to regain her appeal rights, and she may then appeal if the TEC agrees.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman