Summary: Mr X complained that the Council wrongly pursued him for payment of a penalty charge notice (PCN) incurred by his son in 2018. He believed the Council acted unlawfully in reissuing the PCN following two revoking orders by the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). Part of the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council in those matters we could investigate.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly pursued him for payment of a penalty charge notice (PCN) incurred by his son in 2018. He believes the Council acted unlawfully in reissuing the PCN following two revoking orders by the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court and that it should have written to his son for payment. Following a visit from the Council’s enforcement agents (bailiffs) Mr X had to pay £408 for the PCN.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in escalating the PCN between August 2018 and September 2019. This is because Mr X has made statutory declarations to the TEC about these processes, and we cannot consider issues which have already been determined by the TEC.
3. The Ombudsman normally expects people to complain to us within twelve months of them becoming aware of a problem. We look at each complaint individually, and on its merits, considering the circumstances of each case. But we do not exercise discretion to accept a late complaint unless there are clear and compelling reasons to do so.
4. I have exercised discretion to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the reissue and enforcement of the PCN between September 2019 and March 2020 despite Mr X bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman over 12 months later. This is because Mr X had a period of illness during this time and so I am satisfied Mr X brough his complaint to us as soon as he was able to do so.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. 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)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court but cannot investigate if the person has already been to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared a draft version of this decision with Mr X and the Council and invited their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background to the events I investigated

9. The Council issued Mr X a PCN for driving in a bus lane in 2018. Mr X says his son was driving the car so he believes the Council should take the matter up with him. However, he disputes the PCN and says the Council did not provide adequate warning of the bus lane and in any event the PCN was invalid because it was unsigned.
10. Mr X wrote to the Council explaining why he thought the PCN was invalid and unenforceable. The Council disagreed and advised Mr X he could either pay the outstanding amount or appeal to the Parking Adjudicator.
11. Mr X did not appeal. The Council therefore registered the unpaid PCN as a debt with the TEC and instructed bailiffs to recover payment from him. Mr X applied to the TEC to make a statutory declaration challenging the Council’s actions. In November 2018, the TEC accepted his application and ordered the Council to cancel its escalation of the case. However, the order noted:

“This order does NOT cancel the original Penalty Charge Notice. You should contact the Local Authority/Charging Authority as they may well take further action on it. The Authority should inform you as soon as possible if it intends to do so.”

12. Mr X says he contacted the Council, but it did not respond. He therefore considers it is not entitled to pursue the matter further.
13. The Council reissued the PCN but Mr X says he did not receive it. He says he only found out when he contacted the TEC. Mr X filed another statutory declaration with the TEC. While this was being processed, the bailiffs visited him at home and he had to pay £408. Upon processing the statutory declaration, the Council was again ordered to cancel its escalation of the matter. The bailiffs therefore refunded Mr X’s payment. The resulting order from the TEC again advised Mr X that this did not mean the original PCN was cancelled.

Events I have investigated

14. In September 2019, the Council reissued the PCN. Mr X was given the opportunity to make a payment of £30. This would increase if it was not paid promptly. A reminder was sent in November 2019.
15. Mr X wrote to the Council in November 2019 questioning why it was attempting to recover the penalty charge for a third time as it had been revoked twice and “dropped” by the Council several months earlier. He set out the reasons he believed the Council had chosen not to take further action and asked it to confirm it would not pursue the matter further.
16. The Council responded to Mr X shortly afterwards explaining it had reissued the PCN and intended to pursue it. It confirmed Mr X was too late to appeal against the PCN and invited him to pay the £90 owed. If he did not, it explained it may apply to the TEC to recover payment from him. It also confirmed it would not enter into any further correspondence with him.
17. Mr X says he filed another statutory declaration with the TEC in January 2020. As before, he expected any enforcement action to be put on hold until a judge had considered his case.
18. Because Mr X had not paid, the Council registered the unpaid PCN as a debt with the TEC and instructed its bailiffs to recover payment from him. The Council says it was unaware Mr X had filed a statutory declaration with the TEC.
19. Mr X again disputed the Council’s actions but the Council confirms it told him on 4 March 2020 that the case had not been dropped. Bailiffs then visited Mr X on 18 March 2020 and Mr X again paid the £408 owed.
20. Mr X says the bailiffs did not adhere to social distancing and as a result he contracted COVID-19. He believes the Council forfeited its right to pursue the PCN and should refund his money and pay him compensation. He also believes it should have contacted his son about the matter as he was driving at the time of the contravention.

My assessment

21. For the reasons explained at paragraph 2 and 7 above, I have only investigated events from September 2019 onwards.
22. Mr X believes the Council acted with fault when it reissued the PCN in September 2019 and the resulting enforcement action.
23. I disagree. The TEC’s decision to revoke the charging order did not prevent the Council from reissuing the PCN as Mr X believes. The order from the TEC advised Mr X of this.
24. The Council wrote to Mr X in September and November 2019, advising him that it intended to pursue Mr X for payment. I am satisfied Mr X was aware the Council was still actively pursuing the PCN and that the Council was entitled to do so.
25. The Council then properly considered and responded to Mr X’s representations that he should not pay. There is no evidence to show the Council disregarded any communications from the TEC about the case being put on hold or revoked.
26. In response to my enquiries, the Council has accepted the possibility of an overlap between Mr X filing his statutory declaration with the TEC and the bailiffs being instructed. However, neither the Council, nor Mr X has been unable to provide any records relating to the statutory declaration that Mr X says he filed in January 2020.
27. In the absence of such records, I am satisfied the Council followed the correct procedures when it reissued and enforced the outstanding PCN. I appreciate Mr X has a strongly held opinion that the PCN was invalid, but the Council made the decision they were not justification for cancelling the PCN and explained the reasons to Mr X.
28. It is the owner/registered keeper of a vehicle who is liable for a PCN in law and there is no basis for Mr X to transfer liability to his son as the driver at the time of the contravention. The Council was not therefore required to reissue the PCN to Mr X’s son and was entitled to pursue Mr X as the person liable for the PCN. There is no legal requirement for the PCN to be signed. The TEC confirmed this in issuing the ‘warrant of control’ which allowed the Council to instruct bailiffs to recover payment from Mr X.
29. I note Mr X claims he contracted COVID-19 from the Council’s bailiffs but we could not prove this on the balance of probabilities. There was a large rise in cases of COVID-19 from March 2020 resulting in a national lockdown and we cannot speculate as to how Mr X caught the virus so long after the event. Social distancing was also not a requirement at the time of the bailiffs’ visit so even if we could show Mr X caught COVID-19 from them it is unlikely we could show this was the result of any fault as they were entitled to visit Mr X to recover payment.
30. Overall, I do not find the Council acted with fault in respect of the matters within our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Final decision

31. There was no evidence of fault by the Council on the matters within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. On this basis I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman