Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about two penalty charge notices issued by the Council for moving traffic contraventions. The complainant has appealed one of the penalty charges and has asked a court to restore his right of appeal against the other. There is no fault in the Council not refunding a court fee paid by the complainant.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained the Council has not refunded costs he incurred in relation to a penalty charge notice for a moving traffic contravention. He says the Council should refund these costs and cancel a second penalty charge notice.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. Where someone has already appealed to a tribunal or sought a remedy we cannot investigate and have no discretion in this. The courts have decided these restrictions apply even if the tribunal or court could not provide a remedy for all the claimed injustice.
6. We cannot investigate a complaint about the commencement or conduct of court action. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint and background information provided by the Council. I have also seen the public register of appeal kept by London Tribunals. Mr B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. The Council enforces traffic restrictions and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 and associated Regulations. The Council and motorists must follow these procedures .
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. There is a right of appeal to London Tribunals against a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. An appeal to London Tribunals, which is a statutory tribunal, 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.

Summary of events

12. The Council issued two penalty charge notices (PCN1 and PCN2) to Mr B by post. This was because it believed he owned a car it had witnessed being driven in contravention of a restriction. In each case, the Council sent the penalty charge notice using the keeper details provided by the DVLA. Each penalty charge was initially £130 but this would rise to £195 after 28 days.

PCN1

13. The Council received no payment or representations against the penalty charge notice so continued recovery action. It eventually registered the unpaid penalty charge, which had now risen to £195, as a debt at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. This allowed the Council use bailiffs to collect the debt, a court fee and their own costs from Mr B.
14. Mr B made an application to the TEC asking it to accept a statutory declaration outside the usual time limit. The TEC refused his application and he asked another court to review the TEC’s decision. This required him to pay a court fee which was not dependent on the outcome of the review.
15. The second court granted leave for Mr B to file a late statutory declaration. This took the matter back to the penalty charge notice stage and removed any costs added to the penalty charge. It did not cancel the original penalty charge and the Council reissued PCN1.
16. Although Mr B asked the court to award him costs against the Council, the court order made no reference to this.
17. Mr B made representations against PCN1 which the Council rejected. Mr B then appealed to London Tribunals which upheld his appeal. The case was now closed. Mr B also asked London Tribunals to award costs against the Council but it refused his request.
18. We cannot investigate a complaint about PCN1. This is because Mr B has sought a remedy both by appealing to a tribunal and in court. There is nothing to suggest the Council has failed to refund any costs he incurred. The restriction I describe in paragraph 5 applies.
19. The fee Mr B paid for the second court to reconsider the TEC’s decision was required under the court rules and was not refundable. Any complaint about this relates to the conduct of court proceedings and we have no jurisdiction to consider it. The restriction I describe in paragraph 6 applies.

PCN2

20. The Council received no payment or representations against the penalty charge notice so continued recovery action. It eventually registered the unpaid penalty charge, which had now risen to £195, as a debt at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. This allowed the Council to use bailiffs to collect the debt, a court fee and their own costs from Mr B.
21. Mr B made an application to the TEC asking it to accept a statutory declaration outside the usual time limit. Had it accepted the application, the Council would have issued a new penalty charge notice which Mr B could have appealed against; any additional costs would also have been removed. However, the TEC refused his application and it is now too late for him to ask another court to review the TEC’s decision.
22. The Council still has the authority of the TEC to collect the debt and other costs from Mr B. Due to restrictions arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, it has not yet done so.
23. We cannot investigate a complaint about PCN2. This is because Mr B had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice and has asked a court to restore that right. The restriction I describe in paragraph 5 applies.

Back to top

Final decision

24. We cannot investigate this complaint for the reasons given in paragraphs 18,19 and 23.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman