Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could have followed the statutory process.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council did not respond to his appeal about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). He says the Council unlawfully passed his details to bailiffs. Mr X wants the Council to drop the case.

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 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 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. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes letters the Council sent to Mr X about the PCN. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The registered owner of a car is responsible for challenging a PCN. This applies even if they were not the driver at the time of the contravention.
7. The Council sent Mr X a PCN because cameras observed his car entering a pedestrian zone. Mr X was not the driver at that time. The Council told Mr X he could pay or appeal. One of the grounds to appeal is if someone was driving the car without consent.
8. Mr X did not pay or appeal. The Council sent a charge certificate which increased the fine and said the Council would take legal action if he did not pay. The Council heard nothing from Mr X so it registered the debt it court. This allowed the Council to instruct bailiffs to collect the debt.
9. Mr X contacted the Council to say he had been contacted by bailiffs. He said this was the first he knew of the PCN and said his details should not have been passed to bailiffs. He said he had applied to court for a statutory declaration. People can apply for a declaration if, for example, they did not receive the PCN or they had appealed and not had a response. The Council told Mr X it was too late to appeal and he must pay the bailiffs.
10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Mr X could have followed the statutory process. The Council notified Mr X of the PCN and gave him the chance to pay or appeal. Mr X did neither so the Council followed the correct process by registering the debt in court which allowed it to instruct bailiffs. Mr X says he has applied for a statutory declaration so the court will decide if there are grounds to withdraw the case from bailiffs.
11. If Mr X wanted to dispute the fine he could have appealed using the form on the PCN and he could have appealed to the tribunal if the Council rejected his challenge. It is reasonable to expect him to have done this because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider disputes about PCNs. The tribunal has the power, if appropriate, to cancel a PCN. We do not have that power.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Mr X could have followed the statutory process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman