The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss B complained the Council wrongly issued a penalty charge notice for an alleged parking offence. We have ended our investigation as Miss B had a right of appeal to the London Tribunals and it was reasonable for her to use this appeal right.
The complaint
Miss B complained the Council wrongly issued a penalty charge notice (PCN) for an alleged parking offence. She also says the Council failed to show any compassion towards her circumstances.
Miss B says the matter has had a detrimental impact on her mental health.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Miss B and the Council.
Miss B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Miss B received a PCN from the Council in November 2023 for an alleged parking contravention. Miss B challenged the PCN and said the contravention did not happen. She also said she was experiencing mental health issues.
The Council considered Miss B’s informal representations. It said it was sorry to hear about her mental health, but it was satisfied the contravention took place. It said Miss B could settle the penalty at a discounted rate within 14 days, and that would close the case. Alternatively, if Miss B did not pay within 28 days, she could make formal representations. It said if it rejected those representations, she could appeal to the London Tribunals.
After further communication with the Council, Miss B paid the discounted rate. The Council closed the case.
Analysis Miss B disputed the validity of the PCN, and so it was open for her to appeal to the London Tribunals. The Council made this clear in its correspondence. The London Tribunals decide whether a parking contravention has occurred. It can also consider whether there were mitigating circumstances. If it accepts there were mitigating circumstances, it can refer the matter back to the Council for reconsideration.
Miss B says she did not appeal as she would have had to attend a tribunal hearing, which would have caused extra stress. She also says she was not aware of the process. While I note Miss B’s comments, the appeal process is free, informal, and simple to use. An appellant can appeal in writing, and there is no requirement to make a personal appearance. There is also detailed information of the appeal process on the London Tribunals website. Therefore, I consider it was reasonable for Miss B to have used her appeal right, and I will not exercise discretion to investigate her complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. Miss B had a right of appeal to the London Tribunals, and it was reasonable for her to use this appeal right.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman