Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because it was reasonable to expect Mr X to have used his legal right to appeal to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council handled his complaint concerning a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
2. Mr X contends the Council failed to properly review CCTV evidence, applied the wrong legal test, reached contradictory conclusions about the position of vehicles within the box junction and failed to follow its complaints procedure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The complaint arose from a PCN issued for stopping in a box junction. Mr X paid the penalty and did not appeal the PCN under the parking appeal process.
9. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. In summary it said that challenges to PCNs are governed by the statutory appeal process rather than the complaints procedure. It said Mr X’s issues were effectively challenges to the validity of the PCN and advised that formal representations should have been made under the parking enforcement process. Following a further review of the CCTV evidence, the Council remained satisfied that the PCN had been correctly issued and did not uphold the complaint.
10. We will not investigate. This is because the core complaint concerns whether a PCN was correctly issued following review of CCTV evidence. Parliament has provided a statutory appeal process for challenging PCNs, including representations to the council first and an appeal to London Tribunals. I consider it was reasonable to expect Mr X to make his representations via the appeal process. There is no provision for paying and then complaining.
11. Although Mr X says his concerns relate to service quality and complaint handling, the matters raised are inseparable from the merits of the PCN itself. His allegations go to whether the contravention occurred and whether the PCN should have been enforced. These are matters that fall squarely within the statutory appeal regime and it was reasonable to expect Mr X to use his appeal rights. Therefore, I do not consider the complaint handling issues can be separated out and considered in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it was reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman