LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged road charging scheme contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to make formal representations, and if needed, appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. Mr X used his statutory right of appeal to London Tribunals, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the peripheral matters to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because Mrs X has used her right of appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because Mr B appealed to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice he received for an alleged moving traffic contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because Mrs Y has already appealed to the London Tribunals about the same matter and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a Penalty Charge Notice because Mr X has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals. We will not investigate his concerns about the Council’s failure to accept the Tribunal’s decision as there is not enough evidence of fault and the issue does not cause him significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged moving traffic contravention. This is because Mr B appealed to London Tribunals which found the contravention took place. And, the Council considered Mr B’s mitigating circumstances when it responded to his representations.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice he received for an alleged moving traffic contravention. This is because Mr B put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice he received for an alleged moving traffic contravention. This is because Mr B put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice he received for an alleged moving traffic contravention. This is because Mr B put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about several Penalty Charge Notices. If not already done so, it is reasonable to expect Ms X to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court and to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). As Mr X appealed to London Tribunals, the matter is no longer within our remit.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly enforced a penalty charge notice as he had paid to park as Mr X could have challenged this via an appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice for driving in the ultra-low emission zone without paying the charge. This is because London Tribunals has considered Mr X’s appeal against the penalty charge notice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing penalty charge notices (PCNs) to the holder of a blue disability badge. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the London Tribunals about the issuing of the PCNs. Mr X also complained about the Council’s failure to consider the provisions of the Equality Act 2010. There is not enough evidence the Council failed to consider his requirements under the Public Sector Equality Duty and only the courts can determine if the provisions of the Act were breached.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice and the way the Council approached road sign placement. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right of appeal to London Tribunals. Additionally, there is not enough significant personal injustice to justify investigating a complaint about road sign placement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to put in formal representations, and if needed, appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.