LGO Individual Decisions

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint Transport for London wrongly issued a penalty charge notice (PCN) for driving into an emission zone. There is insufficient injustice to Mr X who is not responsible for the PCN. His relative has used the right of appeal to the London Tribunals.

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

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 was reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his representations against six penalty charge notices. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case and would have been reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals to challenge the penalty charge notice itself.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices. This is 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 Penalty Charge Notices. 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 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 make representations to the Council, and if needed, appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the representations process for a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because Ms Y has already appealed to the London Tribunals, and we could not separate the injustice Ms Y claims or hold the Council responsible for it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is 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’s consideration of Miss X’s traffic penalty appeal. There was no fault in the way the penalty was processed and Miss X has exercised her right of appeal to the independent parking Adjudicator at the London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing several traffic and parking penalties to Mrs X. It was reasonable for her to appeal the penalties to the London Tribunals which is the proper body to consider penalty appeals. She has submitted late witness statements and statutory declarations on some the penalties which provides her with a court remedy in these cases.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London. This is because it would have been reasonable for her to appeal to London Tribunals. In the event Miss X did not receive Transport for London’s correspondence about the penalty charge notice it would be reasonable for her to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to make a late statutory declaration.

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 then the London Tribunals.

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

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice which Mr X says the Council unlawfully issued. Mr X appealed the penalty charge notice to London Tribunals and as such, we no longer have any remit to investigate.

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

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to appeal to the London Tribunals. Further, the Council has offered a satisfactory remedy to the complaint and it is unlikely we would find fault.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices that were allegedly issued to the wrong person. It would be reasonable for the complainant to appeal against the notices at the London Tribunals.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice issued to him. This is because he appealed to the London Tribunals.