Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council for a parking contravention. The law provides a right of appeal to a tribunal against the penalty charge notice and the complainant has asked a court to restore that right.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, complained because the Council issued a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention. The Council then used bailiffs to recover the unpaid penalty charge and other costs.

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. The law further says we cannot investigate a complaint when someone has sought a remedy in court; we have no discretion in this. Case law has 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

5. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint and background information provided by the Council.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. The Council enforces parking restrictions and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the Traffic Management Act 2004 and associated Regulations. The Council and motorists must follow these procedures.
7. 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 using keeper details provided by the DVLA.
8. Mr B had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice 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 3 generally applies.

Summary of events

9. The Council issued a penalty charge notice in March 2017 because it believes Mr B had parked without correctly displaying a permit.
10. Mr B contacted the Council to explain why he believed it should cancel the penalty charge notice. The Council decided not to do this and wrote to Mr B explaining he could pay or wait for it to send a ‘notice to owner’. This would allow him to make formal representations against the penalty charge notice and appeal to London Tribunals if the Council rejected these.
11. As the Council received no payment or representations, it continued taking recovery action. It eventually registered the unpaid penalty chare as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court which issued an ‘order for recovery’ on 23 October 2017. This allowed the Council to use bailiffs to collect the unpaid penalty, which had increased to £195, and any additional charges. Mr B had 21 days to submit a witness statement to the TEC on certain grounds.
12. In January 2019, Mr B applied to the TEC to make an out-of-time witness statement. He said he had appealed against the Council’s decision but received no response. If the TEC accepted the statement, the Council would have to refer the matter to an adjudicator at London Tribunals and the restriction I describe in paragraph 3 would apply.
13. The TEC refused Mr B’s application and explained he could ask a District Judge at his local county court to review its decision within 14 days. Mr B did not do this.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I have decided we cannot investigate this complaint. Mr B had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice and has asked a court to restore that right. We have no jurisdiction to consider the matter.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman