Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice and an inappropriate sentence in a letter. This is because the complainant can appeal to the tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, disputes a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). He also complains about a sentence in a letter which he found deeply offensive and unacceptable.

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 impact 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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 letter containing the unacceptable phrase and an update from the Council about the PCN. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council issued a PCN. Mr X challenged the fine and said there was no clear signage. The Council rejected his challenge and said Mr X could wait for the Notice to Owner and make formal representations. Unfortunately, the letter included the phrase, “the location in question is clearly marked and sign posted and it remains the motorist responsibility to adhere to all restriction is a [offensive word].”
7. Mr X has made formal representations to the Council and the PCN is on hold while the Council considers the challenge. If the Council rejects the formal representation Mr X can appeal to the tribunal.
8. In response to my enquiries the Council apologised for the wording on the letter and said this was due to human error; it said the issue had been raised with the officer who was very apologetic.
9. I will not investigate the PCN because Mr X can appeal to the tribunal if the Council rejects his formal representations. It is reasonable to expect him to appeal because the tribunal is the appropriate organisation to consider PCN appeals. If appropriate, the tribunal has the power to cancel a PCN – we do not have that power.
10. The phrase/word in the letter was unacceptable. However, the context demonstrates it was not directed at Mr X and I agree with the Council that it appears to be an unfortunate human error. This does not amount to fault requiring an investigation, but the Council may wish to consider sending an apology to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X can appeal to the tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman