Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has instructed bailiffs for a penalty charge notice even though the court issued a witness statement. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has instructed bailiffs for a penalty charge notice (PCN) even though the court approved a witness statement.

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 an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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 read the complaint and all the letters the Council sent to Mr X after the court granted the witness statement. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Witness statement

6. A person can ask the court to grant a witness statement if they did not receive the Notice to Owner. If the court grants a witness statement the process re-starts and the Council must issue a new Notice to Owner. The person can then either pay the PCN or appeal to the tribunal. If they neither pay nor appeal the Council will register the debt in court and then instruct bailiffs.

What happened

7. The Council issued a PCN in 2016 for an alleged parking offence. In 2019 Mr X applied to the court for a witness statement on the grounds that he did not receive the Notice to Owner. The court granted the witness statement in March.
8. The Council issued a new Notice to Owner in April. It asked Mr X to pay £110 or challenge the fine. Mr X challenged the fine. The Council rejected his challenge in May and sent a Notice of Rejection. The Notice of Rejection asked Mr X to pay the fine or appeal to the tribunal. It said that if he did neither then the fine would increase.
9. Mr X neither paid nor appealed. In July the Council issued a Charge Certificate which increased the fine to £165. Mr X did not pay so the Council registered the debt in court and instructed bailiffs in December. Mr X contacted the Council to complain and said the court had accepted his witness statement. The case is still being enforced by bailiffs.

What happened

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The court, in March 2019, required the Council to issue a new Notice to Owner. The Council issued a new Notice to Owner which gave Mr X another chance to pay or appeal. Mr X made a challenge which the Council rejected. The Council then sent a Notice of Rejection which gave Mr X an opportunity to pay or appeal to the tribunal. Mr X neither paid nor appealed so the Council correctly registered the debt in court and instructed bailiffs.
11. Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal, which would have been correct step if he wanted to continue to dispute the fine, or he could have paid to avoid the fine escalating and ending up with the bailiffs.
12. Mr X is correct to say that the court issued a witness statement. This did not cancel the PCN but required the Council to issue a new Notice to Owner so that Mr X could pay or use his appeal rights.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman