Summary: The Ombudsman will not 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, has complained about the way the Council has sought to recover an unpaid penalty charge for a parking contravention. He says the Council should not have taken bailiff action and has prevented him from appealing against the penalty charge notice.

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. It 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 1974 Act also says we cannot investigate when someone 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 and discussed it with him.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. The Council enforces parking restrictions and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the Traffic Management Act 2004 and associated Regulations. Councils and motorists must follow these procedures.
6. 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 2 generally applies.

Analysis

7. The Council says it sent all the necessary documents to Mr B but received no appeal or payment. It continued with recovery action and registered the unpaid penalty charge as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. This allowed it use bailiffs to collect the unpaid penalty charge, a court fee and the bailiffs own charges.
8. Mr B says he made representations against a ‘notice to owner’ sent to him by the Council but received no response. He could not appeal to London Tribunals without this.
9. Mr B has made a witness statement to the TEC. If it accepts the statement, the Council must refer the matter to an adjudicator at London Tribunals. The restriction I describe in paragraph 2 would apply.
10. If the TEC does not accept the witness statement, Mr B could only ask a District Judge at his local county court to review the TEC’s decision. We could not investigate as Mr B will have sought a remedy in court. The restriction I describe in paragraph 3 would apply.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate because Mr B had a right of appeal and has asked a court to restore that right.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman