Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. It was reasonable to expect Mr X to use the statutory representations and appeals procedure. For the rest, we could not add to the investigation the Council has already done.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged parking contravention, did not properly consider his representations about the PCN, communicated poorly and mishandled his complaint about the matter.
2. Mr X says this caused distress, time and trouble.
3. Mr X wants the Council to cancel the PCN and any additional charges, recognise its poor communication and explain its actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the rest of England.
7. 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
8. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. The Council issued a PCN to Mr X for an alleged parking contravention.
11. When a council issues a PCN, the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal. Appeals at this stage are known as informal challenges. If the Council decides not to accept an informal challenge, the motorist can make formal representations against the PCN. If the Council rejects the motorist’s formal representations, the motorist may appeal to London Tribunals.
12. If the motorist does not pay or make formal representations, the Council will issue a charge certificate, increasing the amount payable by 50%. It may then apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to register the debt, before directing enforcement agents to recover it.
13. Had Mr X wished to challenge the PCN, it would have been reasonable for him to do so using the statutory process set out above. London Tribunals can decide whether the PCN should be upheld or cancelled, which the Ombudsman cannot do.
14. Neither the Council’s complaints procedure nor the role of the Ombudsman replaces the statutory representations and appeals procedure.
15. When responding to Mr X’s complaint, the Council acknowledged its communication and complaint handling had fallen below the standard it would expect. The Council apologised to Mr X, conducted work to refresh road markings, and told him it is reviewing its complaints service.
16. Based on the Council’s findings, it is unlikely we could add to the investigation it has already done.
17. Additionally, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling when we decide not to investigate the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate this complaint because it was reasonable for Mr X to use the representations and appeals procedure. For the rest, we could not add to the investigation the Council has already done.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman