Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about bus lane penalty charges. There is nothing to indicate fault by the Council. The complainant had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notices. He can ask a court to restore that right regarding a penalty charge collected by bailiffs.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, complained in relation to penalty charge notices issued by the Council for bus lane contraventions. He says bailiffs acting for the Council clamped his car and he had to pay them £408. He says he had been to court to have the recovery order revoked but the Council continued to take recovery action.

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 also 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. Where someone has already sought a remedy in court we cannot investigate and 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

5. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint. The Council also provided background information.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. The Council enforces bus lanes and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005. These regulations are made under Section 144 of the Transport Act 2000. 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 details provided by the DVLA.
8. The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 require the owner of a vehicle to immediately inform the DVLA of any change of address. It is an offence under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 to use a vehicle where the correct address is not held by the DVLA.
9. Mr B had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) which is a statutory tribunal. An appeal to the TPT is free and relatively easy to use. It is also the way in which Parliament expects people to contest a penalty charge notice. For these reasons, the restriction I describe in paragraph 3 would generally apply.
10. Bailiffs’ fees are decided by Parliament and set out in the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.

Summary of events

11. The Council issued three penalty charge notices in January, February and October 2019 for bus lane contraventions involving the same car. In each case, the Council obtained owner details from the DVLA and posted the penalty charge notice to the owner’s address provided.
12. The penalty charge notices explained the penalty charge was £60 but the Council could accept a discounted amount of £30 if this was paid within 14 days. They also explained how the owner could make representations against the penalty charge notice and appeal to the TPT if the Council rejected these.

The first two penalty charge notices

13. As the Council received no payment or representations for the first two penalty charge notices, it continued with recovery action. It registered the unpaid penalty charges as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. In July 2019, the TEC issued recovery orders which allowed the Council to use bailiffs to recover the debt.
14. In February 2020, Mr B asked the TEC to accept a late statutory declaration that he had not received the penalty charge notices. The TEC accepted this and revoked the recovery orders. The Council issued new penalty charge notices to Mr B which he paid at the discounted amount of £30 each.

The third penalty charge notice

15. The Council sent this penalty charge notice to the address provided by the DVLA in October 2019. The Council received no payment or representations and eventually registered the unpaid penalty charge, which had increased to £90, as a debt with the TEC.
16. The TEC issued an order for recovery and a warrant of execution which the Council passed to bailiffs who traced Mr B to his home address. The amount Mr B now had to pay was £408 – the penalty charge of £90, a court fee of £8 and £310 bailiffs’ fees. Bailiffs clamped Mr B’s car in August 2020 and he paid them £408.
17. Mr B has not made a statutory declaration to the TEC. It remains open to him to ask the TEC to accept a late statutory declaration that he did not receive the penalty charge notice. If the TEC accepted this, we would not investigate because Mr B would have a new penalty charge notice and could choose to either pay or appeal against it. Any additional charges would also be refunded. If the TEC did not accept the statutory declaration, we could not investigate as Mr B would have sought a remedy in court. He could, however, ask another court to review the TEC’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is nothing to suggest fault in how the Council has dealt with the penalty charge notices. Further, Mr B had a right of appeal against the third penalty charge notice and can ask a court to restore that right.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman