Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking or traffic contravention. It would have been reasonable to expect the] complainant to use the statutory representations and appeals procedure.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to follow the correct procedure for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). They say these procedural errors denied him a fair hearing within the statutory timescales.

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 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. If the person has already appealed we have no power to investigate. (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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X is complaining about procedural errors he alleges the Council made after I issued him with a penalty charge notice (PCN). Mr X has now paid the fine.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. The matters Mr X complains about are inextricably linked to the issuing of the PCN and the subsequent process. I can see no good reason why Mr X could not appeal which would have allowed him to challenge all of these matters. And the fact he did not does not mean that will do so now.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint because it would have been reasonable for the complainant to use the representations and appeals procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman