Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains he received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) due to problems with the Council’s IT system used to buy visitor’s parking permits. Mr X wants a refund for the PCN and for the Council to explore if anyone else has experienced the same problem.

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. 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. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X bought a visitor’s parking permit and thought he had done so successfully. The Council issued a PCN because, according to its systems, the vehicle did not have a permit. Mr X bought a second permit and found out that a problem with the IT system, which he was unaware of, meant his first attempt failed.
7. Mr X complained and made an initial challenge about the PCN. He explained what had happened, what he thought the fault was, and sent videos which he said recreated the fault.
8. The PCN team rejected Mr X’s informal challenge in relation to the PCN. Mr X then had the option to pay the PCN or use the statutory process to formally challenge the PCN and appeal to the tribunal. Mr X paid the PCN.
9. Mr X did not use the statutory process but complained. In response, the Council checked with the IT team who reported there were no problems with the permit system on the day in question. The IT team said this was the first time anyone had reported this issue and said its technicians had been unable to recreate the alleged fault. The Council suggested the problem might have been caused by user error. The Council did not cancel the PCN but refunded the cost of the replacement permit.
10. I will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have used the statutory process to challenge the PCN. Instead of paying the PCN, he could have appealed to the tribunal and argued that he paid for a permit, but an IT error meant the application failed. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal because the tribunal is the correct organisation to consider PCN appeals and could have considered Mr X’s points that he was not responsible for permit failure.
11. As this was a matter for the tribunal, I will not comment on Mr X’s points about the IT system.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman