Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about two Penalty Charge Notices because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to go to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals about the matter.

The complaint

1. Mr Y’s company complains the Council has failed to properly consider its representations against two Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). He is also unhappy with the Council’s complaint response.
2. Mr Y says this has led to him having to spend time dealing with the matter and caused financial uncertainty and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
6. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr Y’s company hired out a vehicle, following which two Penalty Charge Notices were issued by the Council. Mr Y says he has made representations and complained to the Council explaining the car hire, but has not received a suitable response.
9. Mr Y has a right to submit a late statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), asking it to remove the charge certificate for the PCNs. If the TEC accepts Mr Y’s application it can take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the PCNs and reinstating Mr Y’s right of appeal against it to the Council if he wishes initially and then the London Tribunals. Mr Y can then decide if he wishes to appeal the PCNs or pay the penalties at a lower amount.
10. This is often free in the initial stages and reasonable adjustments can be made where necessary for access to the service. Further as there is a specific ground of appeal with the London Tribunals for hire car agreements, it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to use his right to appeal. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
11. As we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to go to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals about the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman