Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because Mr X could have challenged it by an appeal to a tribunal, and we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and did not properly consider his formal representations about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged traffic contravention.

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 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the rest of England.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr X, the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X made representations against a PCN the Council issued to him. The Council rejected the representations and Mr X paid the PCN.
8. Mr X says CCTV footage shows his vehicle stopping briefly, but the Council said that as Mr X paid the PCN, the case was closed.
9.  I recognise Mr X’s frustration, but, by paying the PCN, Mr X lost the right to challenge it further. He did have the right to make his case to an independent adjudicator at London Tribunals. We are not an appeal body and are not empowered to make such determinations. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed, and we will not therefore investigate.
10. Mr X is also unhappy with the Council’s complaint handling. It is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling or ancillary matters when we are not investigating the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had the right to challenge the PCN by way of an appeal to a tribunal and it is reasonable to expect him to do so. We also cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman