Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice for a moving traffic contravention. It was reasonable for the complainant to have appealed to a tribunal against the penalty charge notice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained about a penalty charge notice issued to him by the Council for a moving traffic contravention. In summary, he says the restriction was not properly signed so the Council should refund the penalty charge of £65 he paid.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint and background information provided by the Council.

Back to top

What I found

Background

4. The Council enforces moving traffic contraventions and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 and associated Regulations. The Council and motorists must follow these procedures.
5. Mr B had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice to London Tribunals which is a statutory tribunal. An appeal to London Tribunals is free and relatively easy to use. It is also the way in which Parliament expects people to challenge a penalty charge notice. For these reasons, the restriction I describe in paragraph 2 generally applies.

Analysis

6. The Council sent Mr B a penalty charge notice because it believed he had wrongly entered a pedestrian zone. The penalty charge was £130 although the Council could accept a discounted amount of £65 within 14 days. The penalty charge notice also explained how Mr B could make representations against the penalty charge notice and appeal to an independent adjudicator if the Council rejected these.
7. Mr B made representations against the penalty charge notice saying the signs indicating the restriction were too high for him to see.
8. The Council did not accept what Mr B said and sent him a ‘notice of rejection’. This explained he had three options. He could:
• pay £65 within 14 days, in which case he would be unable to appeal; or
• pay £130 within 28 days; or
• appeal to London Tribunals within 28 days.
9. If Mr B did nothing, the penalty charge would increase to £195 and the Council could take court action to recover this from him.
10. Mr B paid £65 and sought to argue he should not have to pay this. The Council explained he had no further avenue to pursue the matter because he chose to pay the discounted amount.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr B had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice to London Tribunals. I have seen nothing to suggest he could not have appealed and so the restriction I describe in paragraph 2 applies.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman