The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about several Penalty Charge Notices that the Council issued. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome because the Council has cancelled them and reimbursed fees paid. It is reasonable to expect the complaint to follow the statutory process and appeal to a tribunal to dispute two remining notices.
The complaint
Miss X complains that the Council issued several Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) to her for parking in a bay where there were no parking restrictions. She says this led to her vehicle being towed. Miss X says whilst the Council has reimbursed her it does not fully cover the charges she has received.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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 the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued eight PCNs to Miss X for parking in a bay where it said restrictions applied. Enforcement action was taken in relation to five of the PCNs and Miss X’s car was subsequently towed away. For her car to be released she paid the removal fee and the five PCN charges.
The Council subsequently accepted that the PCNs shouldn’t have been issued. It cancelled all eight PCNs and reimbursed Miss X for the five PCNs and the car removal fee she paid. The Council said it would not cancel two other PCNs as they were for separate contraventions, and it considers they were issued lawfully.
I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because the Council has cancelled the PCNs and reimbursed her what she paid. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
If Miss X wishes to dispute the two outstanding PCN’s she should do so via the statutory process and appeal to London Tribunals.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because investigation would not lead to a different outcome. It is reasonable to expect the complaint to follow the statutory process and appeal to a tribunal to dispute two remining notices.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman