Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about penalty charge notices issued by the Council, or that the Council is seeking to collect unpaid parking penalty charges from the complainant. She had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notices if she believed they were wrongly issued for any reason. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council has tried to recover what she owes.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Ms B, says the Council discriminated against her by issuing penalty charge notices when it has ignored other cars parked in the same place. She also says the Council is seeking to collect a debt from her using bailiffs. The debt arose from two unpaid penalty charges for parking contraventions. Ms B says the Council is acting unreasonably given her financial circumstances.

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 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)
5. The courts have decided we cannot investigate if someone has already appealed to a tribunal or taken the matter to court. We have no discretion in this.
6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’.
7. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome; or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered what Ms B said in her complaint and background information provided by the Council. I have also seen the public register of appeals on the London Tribunals website. Ms B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

9. 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.
10. In law, the owner of a 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.
11. Parliament decides the level of bailiffs’ fees which are set out in the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.

Summary of events

12. The Council issued three penalty charge notices to Ms B; in July 2019, March 2020 and October 2020. Each required her to pay a penalty charge of £130, although the Council could accept a discounted amount of £65 within 14 days. The penalty charge would increase to £195 if not paid within 28 days of the Council sending a ‘notice to owner’.
13. Ms B paid the third penalty charge at the discounted rate. The Council therefore closed the case and I do not consider it need form part of my consideration of Ms B’s complaint.

The first penalty charge notice

14. When it received no payment, the Council registered the first penalty charge as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. Ms B then made a witness statement to the TEC which it accepted. This did not cancel the penalty charge notice but took the case back to the notice to owner stage.
15. Ms B appealed against the penalty charge notice to London Tribunals. In February 2020, London Tribunals rejected her appeal and Ms B should then have paid £130. However, as Ms B did not pay, the Council has again registered the unpaid penalty charge of £195 as a debt with the TEC and passed the matter to bailiffs to collect.

The second penalty charge notice

16. The Council received no payment or representations following the notice to owner. It registered the unpaid penalty charge of £195 as a debt with the TEC and passed the matter to bailiffs to collect.

The current position

17. The Council has the authority of a court (the TEC) to collect two debts of £195. The amount Ms B owes also includes two court fees of £8 and bailiffs’ fees of £310. The amount she needs to pay is therefore £716.

Discrimination

18. Ms B says the Council discriminated against her because it issued penalty charge notices to her while ignoring cars parked in the same location.
19. There is no expectation a council can issue a penalty charge notice for every contravention that occurs. There will therefore be occasions when not everyone who might have received a penalty charge notice will get one. This does not mean there has been fault by the Council or someone receiving a penalty charge notice has been caused an injustice.
20. While we cannot determine now exactly what happened in Ms B’s case, we can consider the issue of injustice. If Ms B had parked unlawfully, I do not consider she would have been caused significant injustice by the Council issuing a penalty charge notice to her and not to someone else. Whether a contravention occurred would be a matter for London Tribunals to decide, not us. In the case of the penalty charge notice that went to appeal, London Tribunals decided a contravention had occurred. If Ms B believed no contravention had occurred in the other case, she should have appealed.

Analysis

21. Ms B had a right of appeal against any 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.
22. Because Ms B appealed against the first penalty charge notice, we cannot look at a complaint about it. I see no reason she could not have appealed against the second penalty charge notice and so the restriction I describe at paragraph 3 applies.
23. I have seen nothing to suggest fault in how the Council has sought to recover the debt from Ms B. The amount she owes is in line with the various regulations. If she has difficulty paying the debt, she will need to provide evidence to the bailiffs and ask them to agree a payment plan. This is not something we should be involved in.
24. I have decided we will not investigate whether the Council discriminated against Ms B by issuing penalty charge notices. The central issue is whether any penalty charge notice was justified which is a matter for London Tribunals to decide.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint for the reasons set out in paragraphs 21 to 24.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman