Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. This is because the validity of the notice is a matter for the appeals process and it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to reinstate his right of appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice (PCN). He says the vehicle shown in the notice is not his but the Council has refused to cancel the PCN and instead escalated it to enforcement agents (bailiffs) who have taken payment of more than £500.

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 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)
4. 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)
5. London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, the Council’s correspondence about the PCNs and the information provided by Mr X to the Council. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council issued Mr X a PCN for a moving traffic contravention in January 2019. The PCN stated that if Mr X wished to dispute the contravention he could make representations to the Council within 28 days and explained that if the Council rejected his representations he could appeal to London Tribunals.
8. Mr X wrote to the Council explaining the vehicle in the image was not his and that his number plate had been cloned; he also sent a photo of his car which is a different colour to the one shown in the PCN. The Council wrote back to Mr X asking him to provide further evidence within 10 working days.
9. Mr X responded to the Council almost one month later, after the Council had escalated the case and issued a charge certificate which increased the amount of the PCN to £195. He provided two crime numbers and referred to the earlier photo of his vehicle sent with his initial representation.
10. The Council considered the information provided by Mr X but wrote to request further photos as the ones he provided were not clear. It says it did not receive a response to this request.
11. Almost one year later, because Mr X had not responded or paid the PCN, the Council registered the unpaid PCN as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. It then issued Mr X an Order for Recovery and instructed bailiffs to recover the debt. The Order for Recovery explained Mr X could make a statutory declaration to the TEC to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case but instead Mr X wrote a letter to the TEC asking it to set aside the Order for Recovery; this was outside the normal process and it appears the TEC did not respond.
12. The Council’s bailiffs wrote to Mr X but he still did not pay. They then visited his premises which added a further cost. In total Mr X paid the bailiffs £513 which he wants the Council to refund. He has sent the Council further information in support of his challenge to the PCN but the Council has been unable to verify his reports to the Police and has asked him to obtain new crime numbers in order to process a refund.

Assessment

13. If Mr X wished to challenge the Council’s escalation of the PCN, and the contravention itself, it would have been reasonable for him to make a statutory declaration to the TEC as set out in the Order for Recovery. The time limit to make a statutory declaration has now passed but Mr X may apply to the TEC to make the declaration ‘out of time’. I have seen nothing to suggest it would have been unreasonable to expect Mr X to use this process and it may still provide him with the outcome he wants now.
14. The Council has escalated the case in accordance with the statutory process and Mr X is looking for an appeal body to consider the validity of his challenge to the PCN. This is not our role but if the TEC accepts Mr X’s application it may take the process back to an earlier stage. This would reinstate his right of appeal against the PCN and remove the basis for the additional costs. Mr X may then ask London Tribunals to consider his challenge to the PCN and it may decide to cancel it. If it does, we would expect the Council to refund Mr X’s payment to the bailiffs in full.
15. Alternatively, the Council has agreed to consider further evidence from Mr X and to refund him if the evidence is sufficient to show the vehicle in the PCN is not his. Mr X disputes the need to provide additional evidence but the Council has clearly shown a willingness to cancel the PCN if he does, and this may provide a more immediate and informal resolution to the issue.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the validity of the PCN is a matter for the appeals process and it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the TEC to reinstate his right of appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman