Summary: We will cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued after he had driven off, as he was instructed to do by the Council’s civil enforcement officer. This is because he has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a second penalty charge notice because the complaint is late and the Council has cancelled it. This provides a suitable remedy for the issue and it is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for him.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about two penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by the Council in May 2023. He says he has a history of mental health issues and the Council’s actions in respect of the PCNs caused him psychological damage and loss of income.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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)
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 Mr X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X’s complaints concern the issue of the two PCNs and, specifically, the conduct of the civil enforcement officer (CEO) who issued them. He says the CEO who issued the first PCN told him to move his car but then issued the PCN several minutes after he left and the CEO who issued the second PCN took a photo of the PCN on his car and then removed it.
10. Mr X appealed against the first PCN and London Tribunals cancelled it. He did not appeal against the second PCN because there was no need; the Council noted the location was wrong so it cancelled the PCN without Mr X having to appeal.
11. The Council issued the PCNs in May 2023 but Mr X did not bring his concerns to our attention until October 2024. His complaint is therefore late. I accept Mr X has some mental health issues but he has shown he was able to use both the appeals process, including appealing to London Tribunals, and the Council’s complaints process. The Council provided a final response to the complaint in October 2023 and this directed Mr X to us. It also explained that Mr X had 12 months “starting from the date you first knew about the matter you complained about, not from the date of this letter.” I therefore consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to complaint to us sooner.
12. However, even if Mr X had complained sooner we would not have investigated his complaint. This is because we have no jurisdiction to investigate where Mr X has used his right of appeal, as he did with the first PCN, and the Council has already cancelled the second one without the need for him to appeal. Had it not done so, Mr X would have needed to appeal and the most he could have hoped for, as with the first PCN, was that the Council cancelled it. I am therefore satisfied its cancellation of the PCN provides a suitable remedy for this part of the complaint and that any remaining injustice Mr X claims is not significant enough to warrant further investigation or a remedy. We cannot in any event say the Council must pay Mr X compensation for personal injury- the claimed impact to his mental health- or financial loss, as he did not have to pay the PCN.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late, Mr X had a right of appeal against the PCNs which he has used and there is not enough injustice from the issue of the second PCN to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman