Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention. The complainant had a right of appeal to a tribunal and can ask a court to restore that right.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, complained because the Council issued a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention. He says he did not receive the notice to owner or charge certificate sent to him by the Council.

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. Further, the law says we cannot investigate a complaint when someone has taken the matter to court; we have no discretion in this. The courts have decided 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 and background information provided by the Council.

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 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.
8. Mr B had a right of appeal against the 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.

Analysis

9. The Council issued a penalty charge notice, by placing it on Mr B’s car, because it believed he had parked where this was not allowed. The penalty charge was £130 although the Council could accept a discounted amount of £65 if Mr B paid within 14 days.
10. As it received no payment, the Council sent a notice to owner and charge certificate to the address provided by the DVLA. Mr B says he did not receive these at the time because they were delivered to a neighbouring property. By the time he became aware of them, the penalty charge had risen to £195 in line with the Regulations and he no longer had the right of appeal.
11. The Council says it intends to register the unpaid penalty charge as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. This will enable it to use bailiffs to collect the debt, plus a court fee and bailiffs’ fees, from Mr B.
12. If the Council registers the debt with the TEC, Mr B can make a witness statement to the TEC that he did not receive a notice to owner. If the TEC accepts the statement, the Council will issue another notice to owner and Mr B will have a right of appeal to London Tribunals. The penalty charge will return to £130.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because I have seen no exceptional reason Mr B should not make a witness statement to the TEC when the Council registers the debt.
14. If the TEC accepts the statement, the matter will be outside our jurisdiction because Mr B will have a right of appeal to London Tribunals.
15. If the TEC does not accept the statement, Mr B could ask a District Judge at his local county court to review the TEC’s decision. We could not investigate because a court would have considered the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman