Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because the penalty charge notice carried a right of appeal which it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use. The Council’s actions also did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. He says the PCN was unfair as it resulted from confusing and misleading wording on the Council’s website and that despite the Council agreeing to change the wording it has refused to cancel the PCN and refund his payment.

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. 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)
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 Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X says he challenged the PCN with the Council but the Council rejected his challenge. He then paid the PCN at the discounted rate of £65 and complained to the Council.
9. The injustice Mr X claims, and which prompted his complaint, results from the Council’s issue of the PCN. We will not investigate this further because Mr X had a right of appeal against the PCN which it would have been reasonable for him to use. The amount of his payment (£65) is also not significant enough to warrant investigation.
10. Mr X says the Council missed its deadlines for responding to his complaint and the suggestions he made to improve its website and that as a result he went to considerable time and trouble to pursue the matter. But any injustice Mr X claims from this is the result of his decision to try to pursue the issue outside the appeals process. There was no requirement for Mr X to provide the Council with advice on how to improve its website and the Council did not request or agree to compensate Mr X for his time.
11. Mr X was aware following the issue of the PCN that parking restrictions applied and that his understanding of the situation as set out on the Council’s website was incorrect. While I appreciate Mr X sought to clarify this for other members of the public by feeding back to the Council about its wording the Council’s handling of his feedback caused him no direct or significant injustice and does not therefore warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X’s injustice stems from the PCN itself and if he disputed it, it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman