Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. This is because it would have been reasonable for her to appeal. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaints about the Council’s enforcement agents as the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with the matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. She also complains about the actions of the Council’s enforcement agents (bailiffs).

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.
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.
5. 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)
6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I reviewed Miss X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared my draft decision with Miss X and considered her comments.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Council issued Miss X a PCN for a parking contravention in 2019.
9. 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’.
10. 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 London Tribunals.
11. 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.
12. Miss X informally challenged the PCN but the Council refused her challenge. She disputes the PCN and suggests she did not hear further from the Council until its bailiffs visited her parents address, where the car was registered, demanding payment. She is unhappy the bailiffs shared her personal information with her family and requested a copy of the body-cam footage from their visit, which the Council has refused to provide.
13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Any dispute about the validity of the PCN is a matter for the appeals process. The Council sent its correspondence to the address held by the DVLA and if Miss X wished to challenge it, it was for her to ensure she had access to the correspondence so that she could follow the formal process.
14. It is not fault for a council to issue correspondence about a PCN to the address held by the DVLA and if Miss X wishes to reinstate her right of appeal she may apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement. If the TEC accepts her application it may order the Council to reissue the notice to owner, providing a further opportunity for her to appeal. If it refuses her application she may apply for a review.
15. The Council has explained to Miss X how it dealt with the alleged breach of data protection and the reasons it will not release the bailiff’s body-cam footage to her and it is unlikely we could say this is fault. If Miss X wishes to pursue this point the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider her concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to appeal against the PCN, and to take her data protection concerns to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman