The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed to the independent parking adjudicators to challenge it.
The complaint
Mr X complains about a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) issued to him and the Council’s response to the representations he made against it. Mr X wants the Council to withdraw the PCN and to compensate him for his time and trouble in dealing with the matter.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Parliament has provided a statutory appeal mechanism for motorists to challenge PCNs, culminating in appeal to independent adjudicators, at, in this case, London Tribunals. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have followed this process to challenge the PCN. We are not another level of appeal and cannot determine the validity of the PCN.
I recognise that Mr X is unhappy that the PCN was not put on hold while he complained but it was his choice to complain rather than to appeal. Responses sent to Mr X make it clear the complaint and appeals processes are separate processes. The Council is under no duty to place a PCN on hold while it deals with a complaint.
For these reasons, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he could have reasonably appealed the PCN to London Tribunals.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman