Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about various matters in connection with Ms X’s appeal to London Tribunals about a penalty charge notice. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have no remit to investigate complaints in connection with matters considered by a tribunal. And it is not a good use of public money to look at ancillary matters around the administration of the appeal when the substantive issues lie outside jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. In short, Ms X complains about matters in connection with her appeal about a penalty charge notice to London Tribunals including:
1. the Tribunal’s view on its own jurisdiction;
2. the outcome of the Tribunal; and ,
3. the administration of the Tribunal hearing including delay.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right but cannot investigate if they have already used it. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. In R (on application of Milburn) v Local Govt and Social Care Ombudsman & Anr [2023] EWCA Civ 207 the Court said s26(6)(a) of the Local Government Act prevents us from investigating a matter which forms the “main subject or substance” of an appeal to the Tribunal and also “those ancillary matters that may fall to be decided by the Tribunal…such as procedural failings or conduct which is said to be in breach of the [Tribunal] Rules, practice directions or directions or that is said to be unreasonable…”.
6. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are prohibited from considering matters decided at Tribunal. And it is not a good use of public money to look at ancillary matters related to the administration of the appeal when the substantive issue lies outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman