Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about enforcement of a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and there is not significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council pursued enforcement action against him for an unpaid Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) which he says he did not receive as he had moved address. He says he only became aware of the PCN when an enforcement agent attended him property asking him to pay £400. He also complains that he found the enforcement agent intimidating.
2. Mr Y says he felt threatened by the bailiff and distressed because of the situation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
6. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council issued a PCN to Mr Y in November 2021 after he parked in a loading bay without loading. The Council says it then sent the Notice to Owner, Charge Certificate and Order for Recovery to the address for the registered keeper after obtaining details from the DVLA. However, Mr Y says he no longer lives at that address and therefore did not receive the correspondence. He says he only became aware of the PCN when he was contacted by enforcement agents on the telephone in May 2022.
9. Mr Y complained to the Council in May 2022 and the Council responded explaining it had followed its process after obtaining the address for the registered keeper, Mr Y, from the DVLA. It also said the enforcement agent company had apologised if Mr Y had found the contact from the enforcement agent to be distressing. Mr Y then contacted us in June.

Analysis

10. Mr Y has a right to submit a statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre, asking it to remove the charge certificate for the PCN. Mr Y can apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) to make a late witness statement. If the TEC accepts Mr Y’s application it can take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the PCN and reinstating Mr Y’s right of appeal against it to the Authority initially and then the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Mr Y can then decide if he wishes to appeal the PCN or pay the penalty.
11. This is often free in the initial stages and reasonable adjustments can be made where necessary for access to the service, including help with completion of forms or the use of a representative. Consequently, as Mr Y has not provided any other reason why he cannot, it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to use his right to appeal. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
12. Mr Y has also complained about the enforcement agent being intimidating, causing him distress. The Council’s response shows that an apology has been issued for any distress caused. While Mr Y may have been upset at the contact by an enforcement officer, this injustice, including any remaining following the apology is not significant enough to justify our investigation. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and there is not significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman