Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that bailiffs contacted the complainant about a penalty charge notice because a court has considered the matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, complained bailiffs acting for the Council had contacted him about a penalty charge notice for a traffic contravention he knew nothing about. This caused him much anxiety and wasted time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint has sought a remedy in court; we have no discretion in this. The courts have decided this restriction applies even if the court could not provide a remedy for all the claimed injustice. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint, information he provided subsequently and background information provided by the Council.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. The Council enforces traffic restrictions and takes recovery action using procedures set out in Regulations. The Council and motorists must follow these procedures.
6. In law, the owner of vehicle is responsible for any penalty charges regardless of who was driving at the time of the contravention. This is most often the person registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) as the keeper of the vehicle. Enforcement authorities will initially send any formal documents – including a ‘notice to owner’ using keeper details provided by the DVLA.
7. Someone receiving a notice to owner has a right of appeal against the penalty charge to London Tribunals which is a statutory tribunal. An appeal to London Tribunals is free and relatively easy to use. It is also the way in which Parliament expects people to challenge a penalty charge notice. For these reasons, the restriction I describe in paragraph 2 generally applies to a complaint about a penalty charge notice.
8. If someone considers they did not receive a notice to owner, they can make a statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. If the TEC accepts this, the Council will issue another notice to owner and the keeper will have a right of appeal to London Tribunals. The restriction I describe in paragraph 2 would apply.

Summary of events

9. The Council issued a penalty charge notice which remained unpaid. The Council took recovery action using details from the DVLA and eventually registered the unpaid penalty charge as a debt with the TEC. The TEC issued an order for recovery which allowed the Council to use bailiffs to collect the debt.
10. Bailiffs visited Mr B who advised them he was not the person responsible for the contravention. He then made a statutory declaration to the TEC to say he had not received a notice to owner.
11. The TEC accepted the statutory declaration and so revoked the order for recovery. It did not cancel the original penalty charge notice but the Council decided to exercise its discretion to do this.

Analysis

12. We would not look at a complaint about the penalty charge notice itself because of the right of appeal to London Tribunals. However, this is not relevant here because Mr B did not receive the notice to owner and the Council cancelled the penalty charge in any case.
13. We cannot look at any issue to do with the recovery procedure because the TEC, which is a court, has considered the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint for the reasons given in paragraphs 12 and 13.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman