Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement of a penalty charge notice as Mr X could have sought recourse through the courts.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains he was first notified of a penalty charge notice (PCN) he was liable for when he received a Charge Certificate for it. Mr X complains about losing out on the opportunity to pay the PCN at the discounted amount due to not having received the original notice of it. Mr X also complains about the procedure available to challenge the enforcement process as he feels it is unfair.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council posted the PCN to Mr X. It is required to do so by first class post. Had Mr X received the PCN he would have had 14 days in which to pay it at the discounted amount of £65. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in this regard to warrant our further involvement as the Council cannot be held responsible for problems with the delivery of the PCN.
7. Mr X paid the PCN after he received the Charge Certificate. At this point the PCN was £195. Rather than pay, Mr X could have waited for the Order for Recovery to be served on him. Mr X could then have made a statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) to have the enforcement of the PCN set back. Had he successfully done this, Mr X could then have either paid the £130 PCN or made a formal appeal against it. Mr X did not do this as he says he had concerns about how this may have impacted him at work, given that the TEC is part of the court service.
8. Parliament provided this right to allow any motorist to challenge the enforcement of a PCN if they did not receive the original notice of it. While I recognise Mr X’s concerns, I consider it was reasonable for him to have used this right and as per paragraph three, we will not investigate. The injustice Mr X claims in this regard relates to the disciplinary procedures of his employer not the legal framework under which the Council must operate when enforcing PCNs.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and Mr X had recourse to the courts, and it is reasonable to have expected him to use this right.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman