Epping Forest District Council (23 016 500)
Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 09 Feb 2024
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about signage and layout of a car park as this, and the penalty charge notice issued to Mr X, could have been challenged via an appeal to the independent tribunal.
The complaint
- Mr X complained about the signage and layout of a car park where he was issued with a parking penalty charge notice (PCN). Mr X says his complaint is not about the PCN but about the underlying issue of the markings and signs in the car park. Mr X wants the Council to address this and a refund of the money he paid to clear the PCN.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- The injustice to Mr X arises from him being issued with a PCN. Parliament has provided an appeal mechanism which Mr X could have used to challenge the PCN, ultimately to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT). The independent parking adjudicators at the TPT would have considered the points Mr X raises now about the layout and signs and would have come to a view on them ie as to whether they are adequate, clear etc. We are not empowered to do this.
- The appropriate way for Mr X to challenge the Council on this matter was to appeal and it is reasonable to expect him to have done so. As such, we will not investigate.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have appealed to the TPT.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman