Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed to London Tribunals about it.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council incorrectly interpreted a parking restriction sign when it issued a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) to him. Mr X is unhappy that the Council took the case to court and the whole matter has caused Mr X stress. Mr X wants the Council to cancel the court judgement and to rescind the PCN.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Parliament has provided an appeal mechanism to enable motorists to challenge PCNs, ultimately to independent parking adjudicators, in this case, at London Tribunals. They could have decided whether the PCN was valid in light of what Mr X says about the signage. We cannot do this and are not another level of appeal. We also cannot ask the Council to rescind the PCN.
7. For these reasons, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed and as such, we will not investigate.
8. I understand why Mr X is unhappy that the Council took enforcement action but the law entitles it to do so if a PCN remains unpaid or unchallenged (via the statutory procedure).

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he could have reasonably appealed the PCN to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman