The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. It was reasonable for Miss X to appeal to an independent adjudicator and it is reasonable for her to file a Witness Statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. There is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice in the other matters she raised.
The complaint
Miss X complained about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) the Council issued for a parking contravention. She says the PCN was wrongly issued and the Council has not dealt with the matter properly. Her concerns include the Council changing the reason for the PCN, delays and a poor attitude. Miss X says she will be put to financial detriment if she has to pay the PCN. She wants the Council to revoke it.
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) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X received a PCN for a parking contravention in late 2023. The evidence I have seen indicates she appealed the matter to the Council, but may not have then escalated the matter to London Tribunals.
We would usually expect complainants to make use of their statutory appeal rights. We are not an appeal body and we cannot cancel a PCN. The tribunal is best placed to decide whether a PCN was rightly issued. As part of an appeal Miss X would also have had the opportunity to raise her allegation the Council changed its reasoning stated on the PCN. It was reasonable for Miss X to appeal to London Tribunals, so we will not consider these parts of her complaint.
The Council has now referred the matter to the courts to obtain an Order for Recovery. It is reasonable now for Miss X to submit a Witness Statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre if she believes she has grounds to do so. A successful statutory declaration would have the effect of reverting the matter back to an earlier stage so that Miss X can pay or appeal the PCN.
Miss X’s complaint is also about delays and the attitude of Council officers, which are separable matters to the PCN itself. I have therefore considered whether we should investigate these elements of her complaint.
Miss X says she asked the Council to provide her with its evidence and it did not do so until three or four months later. The evidence I have seen shows the Council was prompt in its responses to Miss X from March 2024 onwards. I have not seen earlier correspondence; however, it is not proportionate for me to obtain earlier correspondence to consider this further. This is because any earlier delay that we may identify if we were to investigate did not cause an injustice.
Miss X’s claimed injustice is that she will suffer a financial detriment. We cannot consider future or hypothetical injustice; however, there is no evidence any delay there may have been in the Council’s responses increased the likelihood Miss X will have to pay the fine. This is because the way to appeal the PCN is via London Tribunals, and it was open to Miss X to use the appeal rights available to her at any time, regardless of whether she had copies of the evidence the Council held.
There is also insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s communications with Miss X to justify investigating her complaint about the attitude of officers.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it was reasonable for her to appeal to London Tribunals, and it is reasonable for her to submit a Witness Statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. There is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice in other, peripheral parts of the complaint to justify investigating these matters alone when we are not investigating the substantive matter.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman