The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant could have used the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). He says the sign next to the parking bay was unclear regarding payment. He also says he paid for the parking and the enforcement officer did not give a ten minute grace period.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the correspondence about the Penalty Charge Notice and a photograph of the sign. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued a PCN at 19.26 in the evening. Mr X used the pay by phone system to pay for parking; the session started at 19.38.
Mr X make an informal challenge against the PCN. The Council considered but rejected his challenge. The Council gave Mr X another 14 days to pay the fine at the reduced rate of £65. Alternatively, the Council said Mr X could wait until he received the Notice to Owner and then make a formal challenge. The Council explained why it had not cancelled the PCN. This included that when the officer issued the PCN at 19.26 Mr X was not displaying a permit and had not paid for parking.
The Council issued the Notice to Owner on 15 April. The Notice to Owner gave Mr X 28 days to pay £130 or make formal representations. The Council says Mr X has not paid and it has not received formal representations from him.
I will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have followed the statutory process. He could have used the Notice to Owner to make formal representations. If the Council rejected the formal challenge it would have issued a Notice of Rejection. Mr X could then have paid the PCN or appealed to the tribunal. The tribunal would have decided if the Council had correctly issued the PCN. Mr X could have included in his appeal his submission that the sign was misleading and he was not given a grace period. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have followed this process because it is the correct way to challenge PCNs.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because the complainant could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman