Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council’s bailiff did not release his car following his application to the Traffic Enforcement Centre for an out of time challenge to a penalty charge notice (PCN) debt recovery order. We cannot lawfully investigate because Mr X used his right of appeal against the debt recovery order. Where the TEC does not accept an out of time application a council is entitled to resume debt recovery.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s bailiff clamped his car when pursuing an unpaid penalty charge notice (PCN) issued in October 2021. Mr X says he did not know about the PCN and has challenged the debt recovery at the County Court’s Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). Mr X says the Council’s bailiff refused to remove the clamp which he believes it should do. Mr X says he is the carer for a relative and he cannot afford the costs of not having his car. Mr X says the Council has caused him time, trouble, stress, and anxiety. He says the Council should release his car and cancel the release charge.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered Mr X’s comments and information. The Council has provided information including complaint correspondence and the decision of the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
6. The complaint that Mr X did not know about the PCN or debt recovery is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. We cannot investigate because Mr X used his right of appeal to the County Court’s TEC (see paragraphs 2 and 3 above).
7. In June 2022 the TEC refused Mr X’s application to make an out of time challenge to the Court’s debt recovery order. In that case, the Council is entitled to resume debt recovery which was on hold. It would only have to unclamp Mr X’s car if his request for a late challenge was successful. If Mr X disagreed with the TEC decision, he had 14 days to ask a Judge to review the decision.
8. If Mr X cannot afford to pay the debt in one payment, he may ask the Council’s bailiff to assess his financial circumstances and agree a repayment plan.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council’s bailiff did not release his car following his application to the Traffic Enforcement Centre for an out of time challenge to a penalty charge notice (PCN) debt recovery order. We cannot lawfully investigate because Mr X used his right of appeal against the debt recovery order. Where the TEC does not accept an out of time application a council is entitled to resume debt recovery.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman