The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a parking permit matter. This is because Ms X’s injustice lies in a penalty charge notice issued by the Council and it would have been reasonable for her to appeal against it.
The complaint
The complainant, Ms X, complains she was unable to renew her parking permit as a result of problems with the RingGo smartphone application. She did not realise her renewal had been unsuccessful so continued to park on the road and the Council issued her a penalty charge notice (PCN). Ms X says she appealed against the PCN in December 2021 but the Council failed to respond to her informal challenge at the first stage of the appeals process. She sent representations against the PCN in January 2022 but by this point the amount of the penalty charge had increased.
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.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council has no record of Ms X’s challenge to the PCN from December 2021 and it is therefore unlikely we could say it was fault not to respond to Ms X at that time.
Ms X’s injustice lies in the PCN issued by the Council and if Ms X disputed this it would have been reasonable for her to appeal. London Tribunals can consider appeals on the grounds of mitigation, which applies to Ms X’s case, and it had the power to cancel the PCN with the effect that Ms X would not have had to pay.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Ms X to appeal to London Tribunals.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman