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 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.
The complaint
Miss Y complains the Council has failed to allow her to pay a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) in instalments, despite her being unable to pay the penalty.
Miss Y says this has caused her worry and potentially will cause her financial difficulties.
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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Miss Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
While Miss Y has appealed to the Council, she also has a right of appeal to the London Tribunals if she wishes to dispute the PCN, although this may mean the amount owed is increased. This is a choice for Miss Y to make, to appeal further or pay the penalty. However, as the London Tribunals is free initially and reasonable adjustments can be made where necessary, it is reasonable to expect her to appeal to the tribunal if she disputes the PCN. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint as it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to appeal to the tribunal if she disputes the PCN itself.
Further, as it is the Council who is owed the money, it is the Council who can decide how it wants the money to be paid back and when. It does not have to accept the arrangement a person may prefer or suggest and any payment plan is at the discretion of the Council.
As the Council is not required to offer a payment plan, it is unlikely we would find fault. However, the Council has offered a remedy to try to help Miss Y. The Council has offered to extend the date for payment, before the amount increases from £65 to £130, to 6 July 2022. This will allow Miss Y approximately an extra month to make the payment. If Miss Y decides not to appeal as explained above, we would consider this offer as a satisfactory remedy to her complaint. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint 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.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman