Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about recovery action taken by the Council on two unpaid parking penalty charges. The complainant has sought a remedy in court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained because the Council is taking recovery action on two penalty charge notices for parking contraventions. He says he should be allowed to pay £130 for each penalty charge notice and not have to pay bailiffs’ charges. The Council says he must pay £1,026.

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 investigate a complaint when someone has sought a remedy in court; we have no discretion in this. 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 background information provided by the Council.

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. Bailiffs’ fees are decided by Parliament and are set out in the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.

Analysis

7. The Council issued two penalty charge notices to Mr B in early 2019 because it believed he had parked where this was not allowed.
8. Each penalty charge was £130, although the Council could accept a discounted amount of £65 if Mr B paid within 14 days. As the penalty charge had not been paid, the Council issued a notice to owner which allowed Mr B to pay £130 or make formal representations against the penalty charge notice.
9. The Council says it received no payment or representations and so issued a charge certificate. In accordance with the Regulations, each penalty charge increased by 50% to £195.
10. As it received no payment, the Council continued recovery action and registered each unpaid penalty charge as a debt with to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. This added a court fee of £8 to the amount owed for each penalty charge notice. It also allowed the Council to use bailiffs to collect the debt.
11. Because bailiffs have visited to seek to recover each debt, fees of £310 have been added as set out in the Regulations. The amount Mr B owes is therefore £513 for each penalty charge notice; a total of £1,026.
12. In February 2020, Mr B made a witness statement to the TEC for each penalty charge notice. He said he had made representations to the Council within 28 days of each penalty charge notice but had no response.
13. If the TEC had accepted a witness statement, the Council would have referred the matter to an adjudicator at London Tribunals. While this would not automatically cancel the penalty charge notice, it would remove any additional charges and fees. It would thus have provided the remedy Mr B seeks by complaining to us.
14. In March 2020, the TEC refused both witness statements and told Mr B he could seek a review by a District Judge within 28 days. We cannot challenge the TEC’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have decided we cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Mr B has sought a remedy in court. The restriction I describe in paragraph 3 applies and we have no jurisdiction to consider the matter.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman