Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly advised him about the time limit for responding to his representations against a penalty charge notice. This is because the fault Mr X claims did not cause him significant injustice. We cannot investigate any complaint about the penalty charge notice itself because Mr X has used his right of appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council provided misleading information regarding the time limit for responding to his representations against a penalty charge notice (PCN). He says this meant he lost the opportunity to pay the PCN at the discounted rate of £65 and caused him stress and problems sleeping.

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 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)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued Mr X a PCN for performing a prohibited turn in July 2023.
8. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for moving traffic contraventions. When a council identifies a contravention it will issue a PCN to the owner/registered keeper by post. This will detail the amount of the fine and the motorist’s right of appeal, firstly to the council itself and then to a Tribunal.
9. Mr X made representations against the PCN to the Council in August 2023 and the Council acknowledged his representations by email. But the acknowledgement incorrectly provided details about appeals against PCNs issued for parking contraventions. The acknowledgement therefore stated “Please be advised that the Council have up to 56 days to reply to a formal challenge…”
10. The Council refused Mr X’s representations after 88 days and Mr X appealed to London Tribunals. He says that because of the 56-day time limit referred to in the Council’s acknowledgement he believed he had grounds to further his appeal. But the adjudicator dismissed his appeal, stating the time limit only applied to parking PCNs.
11. But Mr X’s appeal to London Tribunals did not only deal with the delay in responding. The adjudicator’s decision shows they considered whether the contravention occurred, the adequacy of the signage and whether the PCN was correctly issued, as well as the alleged delay. The evidence therefore suggests, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr X may have appealed even if the Council had not advised him incorrectly about the timescale for its response. Further, the Council’s acknowledgement did not suggest that any failure to adhere to the time limit would invalidate the PCN or provide reasons to cancel it; this was only Mr X’s assumption.
12. In any event we will only normally investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
13. It was Mr X’s choice not to pay the PCN at the discounted rate of £65- this was not the direct result of the error Mr X refers to- and the Council confirms it reoffered the discount in response to Mr X’s complaint and Mr X has now paid. Mr X has not therefore suffered any significant injustice as a result of the error referred to above as the Council has put him back in the position he would have been, had he not appealed.
14. Mr X’s complaint to the Council deals with the circumstances which led to the issue of the PCN, as well as the handling of his representations, but we cannot consider these issues further because Mr X has used his right of appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we could not say any fault by the Council caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman