Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a moving traffic penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have appealed against it to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr X paid a penalty charge notice (PCN) but later discovered a similar case had been cancelled on appeal by London Tribunals (LT). Mr X complained to the Council and is unhappy the Council will not refund him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The law provides an appeal mechanism whereby Mr X could have challenged the PCN and it is reasonable to expect him to have done so. As per paragraph two, we will not therefore investigate.
8. The Council has advised Mr X that as he paid the PCN, the matter is settled and closed. We will not investigate this as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council in the way this decision was made. We cannot therefore question the merits of it.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have appealed to LT and it is unlikely we will find fault in the Council’s decision not to refund Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman