The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged road charging scheme contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to make formal representations, and if needed, appeal to London Tribunals.
The complaint
Mr B complains he was wrongly issued with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for driving through the Silvertown Tunnel without paying the charge. Mr B says there was not clear signage alerting him to the need to make payment and the £90 fine is excessive.
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 Act 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 B.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr B paid this PCN to cancel it.
Rather than pay this PCN, Mr B could have followed the statutory representations and appeals process to challenge this PCN. This would have involved Mr B putting in representations to Transport for London, and if needed, appealing to London Tribunals.
We generally expect motorists to use this process if they are challenging a PCN and I find it was reasonable for Mr B to do this. The Tribunal is in the best position to decide if a PCN was correctly issued.
So, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman