LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to pay Mr X’s costs as it was ordered to do by London Tribunals. This is because the Council has agreed to pay the costs, apologise to Mr X and pay him £100 for his time and trouble. This provides a suitable remedy for the complaint and it is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve significantly more for Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to put in formal representations, and if needed, appeal to London Tribunals.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and Miss Y has a right of appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals which it is reasonable to expect her to use.

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

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice as since Miss X appealed it to London Tribunals, the matter is no longer within our remit.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking penalty charge notices as Mr X could have appealed to London Tribunals.

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

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

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 make formal representations, and if needed, put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about penalty charge notices issued by the Council. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s handling of Mr X’s correspondence about a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals. Any injustice resulting from Transport for London’s delay is also not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s issue of a penalty charge notice and its handling of his appeal against the notice. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals and the law does not allow us to investigate the Council’s conduct as part of the appeals process.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms C’s complaint that the Council did not give proper consideration to her representations about a Penalty Charge Notice she received. This is because Ms C put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about London Tribunals’ handling of his appeal against a penalty charge notice. This is because the complaint concerns the way the adjudicators considered Mr X’s case and reached their decision on the appeal and the only way to challenge this is by Judicial Review at the High Court.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice from March 2024. This is because Mrs X has appealed to London Tribunals and applied to the court to cancel the Council’s escalation of the case. The Council reissued the penalty charge notice in February 2025 but has since said this was an error. Its cancellation of the PCN provides a suitable remedy for this issue and we would not therefore recommend anything more for Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice for a moving traffic contravention as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal it to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that she was wrongly issued with a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it is reasonable for Miss B to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice he received for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr C to put in an 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 approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals about the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his parking permit. This is because the injustice he claims stems from several penalty charge notices issued by the Council and it would have been reasonable for him to challenge these by appealing to London Tribunals.