Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant appealed to the tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). He says the Council disregarded that he was sick, refused a payment plan and should have issued a warning rather than a fine. Mr X wants an apology and a refund.

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 cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of the tribunal service. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the correspondence about the PCN and the tribunal decisions. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued Mr X with a PCN for entering a street where cars are prohibited. The fine was £130 but this was reduced to £65 if paid promptly.
8. Mr X challenged the fine. He explained he had been forced to enter the street due to a sudden health issue and needed to change driver. He said he was unfamiliar with the area and his sat nav had directed him to that street. The Council noted his health issue but decided not to cancel the PCN. It said the street was clearly marked and there were planters to further highlight the restriction. It said it is the responsibility of drivers to obey road signs. The Council gave Mr X another 14 days to pay £65.
9. Mr X appealed to the tribunal. The tribunal rejected his appeal in February and directed him to pay £130 within 28 days. The tribunal said the fine may increase if he did not pay.
10. Mr X offered to pay 50p a month; Mr X says he is unable to work due to ill-health. The Council said it does not have the processes to accept payment by instalment.
11. Mr X challenged the tribunal decision. The tribunal adjudicator rejected the challenge in April. The adjudicator noted that Mr X should have stopped driving immediately if he was feeling unwell and could have stopped before entering the prohibited street. The adjudicator said Mr X should pay without delay and if he did not then the Council could increase the fine.
12. On 2 April the Council gave Mr X another 28 days to pay £130. Mr X did not pay so in early May the Council issued a charge certificate which increased the fine to £195. Mr X then paid £195 and the Council closed the case.
13. Mr X has written to the tribunal service to complain of disability discrimination. I do not know if the tribunal service has responded.
14. I cannot start an investigation because the law says we cannot investigate any issue that has been the subject of an appeal to the tribunal. This restriction applies even though Mr X continues to dispute the PCN and disagrees with the tribunal decision. Further, the tribunal directed that Mr X must pay £130 and warned him the Council may increase the PCN if he did not pay. Mr X had not paid by early May so the Council was entitled to increase the fine. In addition, the Council explained why it cannot accept payment by instalment. We cannot ask for an apology or a refund because the case has been considered by the tribunal.
15. Mr X has complained to the tribunal service. I cannot comment on this complaint because the tribunal is not part of the Council and is completely independent of the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We cannot investigate this complaint because Mr X appealed to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman