Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to put the matter to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice (PCN). She says she did not receive the Council’s correspondence and it has now appointed enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover more than £240 from her.

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 Mrs X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mrs X and invited her comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council issued Mrs X a PCN for a parking contravention in 2019. Mrs X informally challenged the PCN but the Council rejected her challenge. It then issued a ‘notice to owner’ and Mrs X made formal representations against the PCN.
8. The Council rejected Mrs X’s representations but Mrs X says she did not receive its notice of rejection. She was therefore unaware she needed to pay the PCN or appeal to London Tribunals and did neither.
9. The Council has now registered the unpaid PCN as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court (TEC) and has appointed bailiffs to recover payment from Mrs X. Mrs X says she only became aware the Council was pursuing the matter when the bailiffs contacted her demanding payment. She complained to the Council but was not happy with its responses.
10. It is not for us to decide whether the Council should cancel the PCN; this is the role of the appeals process and London Tribunals. Mrs X says she missed the opportunity to appeal but if she wishes to challenge the PCN it would be reasonable for her to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement. She may do this on the grounds she made representations against the PCN and did not receive a response.
11. If the TEC accepts Mrs X’s application it may refer the matter to London Tribunals to decide whether to cancel the PCN. If it refuses, Mrs X may ask for a review of its decision. The process deals specifically with the issue Mrs X has raised and I have seen nothing to suggest it would be unreasonably for her to use it.
12. Mrs X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to apply to the TEC to reinstate her right of appeal against the PCN.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman