Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a traffic penalty charge notice as Mr X could have appealed it to the independent tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about various issues relating to a traffic penalty charge notice (PCN) the Council issued to him which he believes calls into question its validity. Mr X also complains senior officers at the Council did not respond when he raised these issues with them. Mr X says this has caused unnecessary financial cost, anxiety, and put him to time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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 any alleged fault has not caused significant injustice to the person who complained (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Parliament has provided an appeal process by which Mr X could have challenged the PCN, ultimately to an independent adjudicator at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) who would have decided if the PCN was valid. We are not an alternative appeal and are not empowered to make the decisions the TPT can. It is reasonable therefore to expect Mr X to have challenged the PCN via the statutory appeal process and we will not investigate.
8. I recognise Mr X is unhappy he dd not receive responses from other officers at the Council that he contacted about this, but I do not consider he is caused a level of injustice from this which is sufficient to justify our further involvement. The substantive injustice was the PCN and a remedy could have been sought for this by way of appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he could have taken his case to the TPT and any associated injustice Mr X claims s not sufficient to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman