Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It would also be reasonable to expect Ms X to have used the appeals procedure.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). She says the Council increased the charge without explanation and did not respond to her emails.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 Ms X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Councils follow a set procedure for PCNs. A PCN explains the penalty, how to make representations to the Council, and, if those are rejected, the right of appeal to the Tribunal. The recipient has 28 days to pay or make representations against the PCN.
9. The Council issued Miss X with a PCN. Miss X made representations, which the Council rejected.
10. Ms X says the PCN charge increased to £160 after the Council rejected her representations. She contacted the Council for an explanation but did not receive a reply. The charge later increased to £240, which she paid
11. The Council says the discounted charge no longer applied because Ms X made representations. The Notice of Rejection explained her right to appeal to London Tribunals within 28 days and warned the charge would increase if she did not appeal or pay.
12. We will not investigate this complaint. The evidence shows that the Notice of Rejection clearly explained that if Ms X’s representations were rejected, the full charge of £160 would be payable. It also explained her right to appeal and warned the charge would increase if she did not appeal or pay. I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council. .
13. Ms X also had a right of appeal to the London Tribunal. It would be reasonable to expect her to use the statutory appeals procedure.
14. Ms X also complains about poor complaint handling. It is not proportionate for us to investigate ancillary maters if we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final Decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and it would be reasonable to expect Ms X to have used the appeals procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman