Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to make representations to the Council and appeal to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council fabricated evidence and issued him a penalty charge notice (PCN) for a parking contravention, despite him being nowhere near the location on the relevant date or at the relevant time. He says this has affected his mental health and caused him financial loss.

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. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X disputes the PCN but the appropriate means to challenge it was by using the appeals process. The law allowed Mr X to make representations against the PCN and, if the Council rejected them, he could have appealed to London Tribunals.
7. It is for London Tribunals to determine whether the contravention took place and if the PCN should stand. I have seen nothing to show it was unreasonable for Mr X to appeal and I will not therefore exercise my discretion to investigate the matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal against the PCN to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman