Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. A court can provide a remedy for any injustice arising if the Council wrongly used an incomplete address. It is too late to consider a complaint about the behaviour of bailiffs in November 2019.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr C, has complained about how the Council dealt with a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention. He says the Council sent documents using an incomplete address and so he was unaware of the penalty charge notice until he was visited by bailiffs acting for 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. The law also says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could seek a remedy in court. If someone has already sought a remedy in court, we cannot investigate and have no discretion in this. 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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered what Mr C said in his complaint. The Council also provided background information including its correspondence with Mr C.

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. 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.
12. Bailiffs’ fees are decided by Parliament and are set out in the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.

Summary of events

13. In March 2019, the Council witnessed a parking contravention using CCTV. It obtained the details of the keeper of the car involved from the DVLA and sent a penalty charge notice by post. The penalty charge was £130 although the Council could accept a discounted amount of £65 within 14 days. It also explained how to make representations to the Council and appeal to an adjudicator if it rejected them.
14. As it received no payment or representations, the Council continued recovery action. It eventually registered the unpaid penalty charge, which had now risen to £195, as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. This enabled the Council to use bailiffs to collect the debt, a court fee of £8 and their own fees.
15. At the end of October 2019, bailiffs sent Mr C a ‘notice of enforcement’ requiring him to pay £203 and a bailiff fee of £75. Mr C wrote to the Council saying he knew nothing about the matter and that the address on the notice was incomplete. The Council sent its reply to the address provided by the DVLA.
16. Bailiffs then visited and clamped Mr C’s car. Mr C’s wife paid the bailiffs £513 which comprised the penalty charge of £195, court fee of £8 and bailiffs’ fees which has now increased to £310.
17. Mr C wrote to the Council to complain about the bailiffs’ behaviour and that the Council had continued to use an incomplete address. He asked for the penalty charge to return to the original amount and for a refund of the remaining charges. Mr C also said he had been unable to complete forms TE7 and TE9 as he had received no notice from the TEC because the Council had used the wrong address. (These forms are used to ask the TEC to accept a witness statement outside the usual time limit.)
18. On 22 November 2019, the Council replied it had sent all documents to the address provided by the DVLA. It advised him to make an ‘out of time’ witness statement to the TEC.
19. The Council says it received no further correspondence from Mr C after November 2019. He complained to us in January 2021.

Analysis

20. Mr C 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 and we should not look at a complaint about the penalty charge notice itself.
21. Mr C has specifically complained the Council wrongly used an incomplete address. If this were the case, we would have to consider how this may have caused Mr C injustice.
22. Mr C was clearly aware in November 2019 he could ask the TEC to accept an ‘out of time’ witness statement. One of the grounds for making a witness statement is that he did not receive the original penalty charge notice.
23. If the TEC had accepted the witness statement, the Council would issue a new penalty charge notice and return any additional monies to Mr C. This is the outcome Mr C was seeking from his complaint to us.
24. It is still open to Mr C apply to the TEC to make a witness statement ‘out of time’. It would be for the TEC to decide whether to accept it and, if it refused, he could challenge the TEC’s decision in another court. We could not investigate because he had sought a remedy in court.
25. I have seen nothing to show Mr C pursued a complaint about the behaviour of bailiffs in November 2019. There is no good reason we should consider a complaint about this now.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr C could seek a remedy in court for any injustice caused if the Council wrongly used an incomplete address. It is now too late to consider a complaint about the actions of bailiffs in November 2019.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman