Summary: We will not investigate this complaint requesting the Council refund Mrs X’s payments for 4 Penalty Charge Notices. It would have been reasonable to expect Mrs X to use the statutory representations and appeals procedure.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has refused to properly consider her request for discretionary cancellation and refund of four Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs).
2. Mrs X says she raised concerns about signage at the location before paying the PCNs and that subsequent tribunal findings and the Council's own internal correspondence supported her concerns that signage may have been obscured.
3. Mrs X paid £320 for the four PCNs and now wants the Council to carry out a discretionary review of the cases and refund the charges

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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information from the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

8. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. It advised that disputes about PCNs should be pursued through the statutory appeal process. It explained that if a motorist wishes to challenge a PCN after an initial rejection, they can make formal representations and, if necessary, appeal to London Tribunals. The Council said a PCN cannot be cancelled through its complaints process.
9. We will not investigate. This is because Mrs X had a right to challenge the PCNs through the parking enforcement appeal process and, ultimately, to London Tribunals.
10. The information provided indicates Mrs X chose to pay the PCNs at the discounted rate rather than continue with the statutory appeal process. Payment of a PCN will usually indicate acceptance of liability and brings the enforcement process to an end. By paying the charges, the complainant chose not to pursue the available appeal route which could have considered her arguments about the adequacy of the signage and the validity of the PCNs.
11. In these circumstances, there is not a sufficient reason for us to investigate. The complainant had appeal rights available and elected to make payments rather than pursue them. We would not normally investigate where it was reasonable to expect a complainant to take up their legal appeal rights.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because it would have been reasonable for the complainant to use the representations and appeals procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman