Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his children’s swimming lessons at a local leisure centre as it is unlikely we would find fault causing significant injustice. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council as it would be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about swimming lessons run by the Council at a local leisure centre. He also complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

Swimming lessons

5. Mr X signed his children up for swimming lessons at a local leisure centre. He says he paid £100 in total for lessons lasting 30 minutes each. But he says the first lesson lasted only 10 minutes and it was not with the usual teacher. He asked if the teacher would be available for the next lesson but says staff at the leisure centre were unsure. He asked them to find out but did not hear back. He later asked for a refund but says he received no response to his request.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Council confirms Mr X paid £42 for each of his children to attend eight swimming lessons. It confirms it is normal practice to substitute teachers where the usual teacher is on leave and refutes the suggestion that the first lesson lasted only 10 minutes.
7. In any case, Mr X’s payment amounts to £5.25 per lesson, per child. So even if the first lesson did not last the full 30-minutes the injustice from this is not significant enough to warrant further investigation. It is also unlikely we could prove with any certainty the length of the first lesson which took place more than six months ago.
8. Mr X is unhappy with the way the Council has dealt with his complaint about this issue. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. I will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

PCN

9. The Council issued Mr X a PCN for parking without displaying a valid parking ticket in February 2019.
10. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them. When a council issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal; appeals at this stage are known as ‘informal challenges’.
11. If the motorist submits an informal challenge to a PCN and the Council decides not to accept them, it will write to the motorist and explain why. If the motorist accepts the Council’s reasons they may pay the PCN; if not, they may wait for a ‘notice to owner’. This provides a further opportunity for the owner of the vehicle to pay the charge or make ‘formal representations’ against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
12. If the motorist does not pay or make formal representations the council will issue a charge certificate, increasing the amount payable by 50%. It may then apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court to register the debt, before instructing enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover it.
13. Mr X says he was not aware of any PCN until he received a final reminder for payment. He says he called the Council and then wrote as it suggested, but did not hear a response. He later received a letter from the Council’s bailiffs asking him to pay £320. Mr X paid part of the debt but says he could not afford to pay it all in one go.
14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Council has provided evidence to show it fixed the original PCN to the windscreen of Mr X’s vehicle and wrote to the address provided by the DVLA with the notice to owner and charge certificate. It did not receive payment or an appeal from Mr X so it registered the unpaid PCN as a debt with the TEC and appointed bailiffs to recover payment from him.
15. It confirms Mr X wrote to the Council in October 2019 to query the PCN and has provided evidence of its response explaining he may apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement. However Mr X did not apply to the TEC and paid the bailiffs in December 2019.
16. From the evidence I have seen it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council in its handling of the PCN. But if Mr X did not receive the Council’s notice to owner as he suggests, and regardless of whether this was the result of any fault by the Council or issues with the postal service, he may apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement as the Council has already advised. If successful the TEC may take the process back to an earlier stage, removing the basis for the bailiff’s fees and reinstating Mr X’s right of appeal against the PCN. If the TEC refuses Mr X’s application he may request a review.
17. I have seen nothing to suggest it would not be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to the TEC and I will not therefore exercise our discretion to investigate this part of his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault causing Mr X significant injustice and it would be reasonable for him to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman