Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. It would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to have used the statutory representations and appeals procedure.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council handled his complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged parking contravention.
2. Mr X says the matter caused significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
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 the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained that the Council failed to handle his complaint about a PCN in line with its complaints procedure.
8. We will not investigate the Council’s handling of the PCN. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used the statutory representations and appeals procedure if he wanted to challenge it.
9. As we will not investigate the substantive matters of the complaint, we will not investigate the Council’s handling of the complaint because it is not proportionate to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because it would be reasonable for Mr X to have used the representations and appeals procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman