LGO Individual Decisions

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 Ms X’s complaint about London Tribunal’s handling of her appeal against a penalty charge notice. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants. The law does not allow us to consider complaints about the Adjudicator’s decision to dismiss Ms X’s appeal, including the way they reached the decision, and the administrative issues she complains about did not cause her significant injustice separate from the decision itself.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Transport for London’s handling of her challenge to a penalty charge notice. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to await the authority’s decision on her challenge and, if necessary, appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that he was wrongly issued with a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking 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 and the Council’s handling of parking restriction signage at events hosted by a third party. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal the matter 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 Mr X’s complaint about penalty charge notices because it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals. Additionally, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty because it is reasonable to expect her to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to cancel several penalty charge notices. This is because it would have been reasonable for her to appeal to London Tribunals.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about two penalty charge notices issued by Transport for London. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint enforcement agents wrongfully clamped his car. This is because Mr X had a right of appeal to the London Tribunals, and he had no good reason not to exercise this right of appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that Ms X’s vehicle was towed away without proper notice as it is reasonable to expect the complainant to appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice as it was reasonable to expect the registered keeper of the vehicle to appeal it to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. Miss X used her right of appeal to London Tribunals and the law says we cannot investigate the matter.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council wrongly issued her with a Penalty Charge Notice for a moving traffic contravention. This is because Mrs B put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued after he had driven off, as he was instructed to do by the Council’s civil enforcement officer. This is because he has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a second penalty charge notice because the complaint is late and the Council has cancelled it. This provides a suitable remedy for the issue and it is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for him.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London. This is because Mrs X had a right of appeal to London Tribunals and she has applied to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to restore this right.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council issuing penalties to Mr X for driving in a restricted zone in 2022 and 2023. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Adjudicator at the London Tribunals at the time.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his appeal against a penalty charge notice. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals and we cannot consider any complaint about the Council’s conduct during the appeal process.

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 Adjudicator considered the evidence and reached their decision on the appeal and such matters are not subject to investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices for parking contraventions. It was reasonable for Ms X to use her statutory right of appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. This is because the amount of the penalty charge paid is not significant enough to warrant investigation. Mr X also had a right of appeal to London Tribunals which it would have been reasonable for him to use.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s handling of his representations against a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals. We will not investigate TfL’s escalation of the case as it did not cause Mr X significant injustice.