The Ombudsman's final decision
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 London Tribunals about the PCN.
The complaint
Mr Y complains the Council’s website contains misleading information which led to him missing the deadline to make a formal representation against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued a PCN to Mr Y for entering a restricted Low Traffic Neighbourhood in April 2021. Mr Y decided to appeal the PCN. Mr Y says the website said a formal representation could be made if 28 days have passed since the issue of the PCN and a Notice to Owner or an Enforcement Notice had been received. Mr Y says he did not receive either a Notice to Owner or an Enforcement Notice.
The Council then sent a Charge Certificate to Mr Y in May, saying the penalty had increased to £195 as he had neither paid the amount in the PCN or appealed. Mr Y contacted the Council, explaining he had not received a Notice to Owner and says he was told it was now too late to formally challenge the PCN with the Council. The Council agreed to reduce the penalty to the initial reduced amount of £65.
In June, Mr Y wrote to the Council to complain and referred to the Council’s website. He later gave details on his reasons for appealing the PCN in July, but these were not accepted by the Council. Mr Y approached us in August.
Analysis The Council has considered Mr Y’s appeal of the PCN but did not uphold the appeal. Mr Y can appeal to the London Tribunals. Mr Y has not provided any reason why it is not reasonable to expect him to use his right of appeal to the tribunal.
Further, Mr Y has not been disadvantaged by not receiving the Notice to Owner. The Council considered his appeal and he is able to take this to the London Tribunals she would have been able to if there had been no misunderstanding or if the Notice to Owner had been received. While Mr Y may have needed to contact the Council to explain he had not received the Notice to Owner, this inconvenience is not significant enough to justify our investigation.
Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint for the reasons explained above.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the London Tribunals if he wishes to dispute the issuing of the PCN.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman