Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because she has already appealed to the London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complained the Council issued her with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and impounded her vehicle to allow for a tree cutting service along her road to take place. She complained that when she appealed the PCN to the London Tribunals the Council did not contest her appeal.
2. Ms Y says this caused her worry and inconvenience at the time her car was impounded and further time and trouble in appealing and she did not receive a refund for her car being wrongly towed for nearly three months after her appeal was upheld.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
5. The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information Ms Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council issued a PCN to Ms Y and impounded her vehicle to clear a road ready for tree cutting. Ms Y made representations to the Council against the PCN which were rejected.
9. Ms Y then appealed to the London Tribunals. The Council has told Ms Y in its complaint response it did not contest Ms Y’s appeal due to an administrative error. However, as the Council did not contest the appeal, the Tribunal cancelled the PCN. The Council also refunded the amount Ms Y paid to have the vehicle released. As Ms Y has already appealed to the London Tribunals, we do not have the jurisdiction to investigate her complaint. Consequently, we will not investigate.
10. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
11. Further Ms Y’s injustice, since the refund and cancellation of the PCN, has now been reduced to the inconvenience and upset caused. While Ms Y may feel upset about this, we would not consider this to be a sufficiently serious harm to warrant our investigation. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We cannot investigate Ms Y’s complaint because she has already appealed to the London Tribunals

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman