Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s escalation of two penalty charge notices. This is because Mr X has applied to the court to challenge the Council’s actions. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pursuit of payment for the penalty charge notices as the injustice he claims stems from the court’s decisions rather than any fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about two penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by the Council for prohibited right turns. He believes the Council was wrong to pursue action against him while he was out of the country and paid £510 for the court to review its decisions not to take the process back to an earlier stage.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 could take the matter to court. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court but cannot investigate if the person has already been to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and took account of the comments and documents he provided in response.

Back to top

Background

8. The Council issued Mr X two PCNs in January 2020 for moving traffic contraventions. Mr X made representations against the PCNs but the Council refused them. Mr X did not then pay the PCNs so the Council escalated them in accordance with the statutory process.
9. The Council registered the unpaid PCNs as debts with the court in March 2021. Mr X applied to the court to challenge the process in May 2021 but the court refused his applications. The Council was therefore able to instruct enforcement agents to recover payment from Mr X.
10. Mr X requested reviews of the court’s decisions and paid £510 for this on 3 September 2021. He then emailed the Council on 8 September 2021 saying he was not in the country and could not deal with the matter at that time. He asked the Council to place a hold on the matter for at least two months to give him time to return home and sort out his papers.
11. The Council responded to Mr X on 21 September 2021. It agreed to accept payment at the discounted rate of £65 per PCN so Mr X paid the Council £130 on 24 September 2021. The Council says this closed the cases and that it has taken no further action. However Mr X has provided Notices from the court dated 12 October 2021 confirming hearing dates for two cases in November 2021. Mr X contacted the Council about the letters but it has been unable to find any record of further action taken against him. I have asked the Council to look at this again but it is still unable to find anything to show it took further action against Mr X through the courts and Mr X has received nothing further about this to suggest such action is ongoing.

Back to top

My assessment

12. We cannot investigate any complaint about the Council’s escalation of the PCN up to and including its registration of the debt with the court. This is because Mr X has sought to challenge the Council’s actions at court.
13. While Mr X argues he has separate significant injustice resulting from the Council’s refusal to place a hold on the matter while he was abroad the injustice he claims is not the result of any fault by the Council.
14. The Council was entitled to appoint enforcement agents to recover payment from Mr X and in response to his email dated 8 September 2021 it agreed to accept a lower rate of payment than it was owed. This is an appropriate use of its discretionary powers in the circumstances.
15. Unfortunately by this point Mr X had already paid the court £510 to carry out reviews of its decisions but this is not the result of any fault by the Council; Mr X paid this money because he was not happy with the court’s decisions and the Council cannot be held responsible for this.
16. Mr X refers to the Notices from the court as the reason for invoking the review process but these Notices were dated after he applied to the court to review is decisions and paid its fees. We could not therefore say he made the payment as a result of the Notices he received, whether they amount to fault by the Council or not.
17. The Council confirms it has closed the cases and will take no further action and I have seen nothing to suggest this is incorrect. In the event Mr X receives further notification of hearings at the County Court he may contact us again and we will consider whether to reopen the complaint to consider the matter further.
18. But we will not investigate any complaint about the issue of the PCNs themselves as their validity is a matter for the appeals process.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We cannot investigate any complaint about the Council’s escalation of the PCNs because Mr X has sought a remedy at court. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s actions to recover payment for the PCNs as the injustice he claims is not the result of any council fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman