Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention. The complainant had a right of appeal to a tribunal and has asked a court to restore that right and remove any additional costs.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss B, says the Council wrongly issued a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention. It then denied her the right to appeal and she had to pay bailiffs £423 after they clamped her car.

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 investigate a complaint 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 action 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 Miss B said in her complaint and discussed it with her. The Council also provided background information.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. 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.
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. Miss 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.

Summary of events

10. The Council issued a penalty charge notice in September 2019 because it believed Miss B had parked where this was not permitted. The penalty charge was £70 although the Council could accept a discounted amount of £35 within 14 days.
11. The Council received no payment so in October 2019 it sent a formal ‘notice to owner’ to Miss B at the address provided by the DVLA. This explained how she could make representations against the penalty charge notice and appeal to the TPT if the Council rejected these. It also explained the penalty charge would increase to £105 if she did not pay or make representations within 28 days.
12. The Council did not hear from Miss B until January 2020 when she wrote asking it to cancel the penalty charge notice. The Council advised her it was too late for her to make representations.
13. In further correspondence, Miss B said she did not receive the notice to owner. The Council correctly advised her she could wait until it registered the unpaid penalty charge as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. The Council would then send her an ‘order for recovery’ and she could make a witness statement to the TEC saying she did not receive the notice to owner. If the TEC accepted this, the Council would issue a new notice to owner and Miss B could either pay the original penalty charge or make representations and then appeal to the TPT if necessary.
14. It appears Miss B had moved from the address provided by the DVLA and did not receive the order for recovery. The Council continued recovery action and eventually bailiffs visited Miss B. She paid them £423 which comprised £105 penalty charge, £8 court fee and £310 bailiffs’ fees.
15. Miss B has recently made an application to the TEC asking it to accept a witness statement outside the usual time limit. If the TEC accepts this, the Council will issue a new notice to owner and Miss B will again have a right of appeal. The Council will refund any additional charges. If the TEC does not accept her application, Miss B can ask a District Judge at her local County Court to review the TEC’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have decided we cannot investigate this complaint. We could not decide if the Council should have issued the penalty charge notice because she could appeal to the TPT about this. However, by applying to the TEC, Miss B has sought a remedy in a court and so the law says we cannot investigate

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman