Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice as Mr X had a right of appeal to a Tribunal, and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants. We will not investigate the officer conduct as a separate matter as any injustice arising from this is not sufficient to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and about the conduct of the civil enforcement officer (CEO) who issued it. Mr X says he and his family member were caused distress. Mr X wants a refund of the money he paid to clear the PCN.

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.
5. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X says the CEO wrongly issued the PCN and was rude to him. Mr X paid the PCN but continued to challenge it and the officer’s conduct with the Council while seeking a refund.
9. I recognise Mr X remains unhappy but by paying the PCN, he lost the right to challenge it further. He says he later tried to appeal to London Tribunals, but the Tribunal did not accept his appeal because it was out of time. We are not another level of appeal and are not empowered to decide whether the PCN should stand.
10. We will not investigate the officer conduct as a separate matter. Mr X says the CEO was rude and discriminated against him because of his disability. However, any separate injustice arising from the CEO’s conduct is not significant enough to justify investigating. We have limited resources and must direct them to the more serious cases. The substantive injustice to Mr X was the PCN, which was a matter for the statutory appeal process.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had a right of appeal to a Tribunal and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants. We will not investigate the officer conduct as a separate matter as any injustice arising from this is not sufficient to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman