Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to respond to the complainant’s communications about two penalty charge notices. This is because the Council has now proposed to take action which is a satisfactory way to address the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss X, says the Council failed to respond to her representations/complaints after she received two penalty charge notices (PCNs) for alleged parking contraventions.

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. We can investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. The law also says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal 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 appeal. (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 Miss X and the Council. This included information about the enforcement process and the correspondence Miss X sent to the Council.
7. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council issued Miss X with two PCNs in November 2022. She says the PCN numbers were not recognised when she entered them into the Council’s system, so she used the ‘general parking enquiry’ contact address to challenge the PCNs. These enquiries were not responded to, and as the enforcement process continued to progress, Miss X attempted to contact the Council again but received no substantive response about her original representations.
9. In response to my enquiries about this complaint, the Council said Miss X’s November 2022 representations may have been automatically redirected to an incorrect email address. It has offered to now review her representations, and if they are still refused she will have the option to either pay the penalty charges at the 50% reduced rate or submit appeals to London Tribunals. This puts Miss X back in the position she would have been in if the Council had considered her November 2022 submissions, and the Ombudsman would normally expect someone to pursue an appeal if they wish to continue to challenge a PCN.
10. I am satisfied this is a reasonable way to address the complaint, so the Ombudsman will not pursue the matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the Council has proposed action which is a satisfactory way to resolve the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman