Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council wrongly pursued a penalty charge notice debt. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and its bailiff and investigation is not likely to achieve the outcome Mr X wants. We cannot investigate matters considered by the County Court’s Traffic Enforcement Centre.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s bailiff visited in March 2022 to enforce a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) debt of £409. Mr X says the Council had told him, in October 2021, it would send an order for recovery of the debt at which time he could challenge it. He says he had not received anything from the Council before the bailiff visit. He felt pressured by the bailiff into paying the money demanded.
2. Mr X complains he had paid for a parking ticket and when he received the PCN tried unsuccessfully to make an online representation against it. Mr X complains that when he challenged the debt recovery, by making an out of time application to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at the County Court, the Council opposed it because he had paid the fine and without explaining the full facts.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and Council. The information includes the complaint correspondence, the PCN documents, records of the Council and Bailiff of case actions.

Back to top

My assessment

8. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
9. There is insufficient evidence of fault regarding the recovery of the PCN debt and investigation is not likely to achieve the outcome Mr X wants:
1. The Council was entitled to pursue recovery of the 2021 PCN debt having obtained from the County Court’s TEC an order for recovery. The order for recovery was sent to Mr X at the correct address. Mr X has referred to having problems with his post and not receiving correspondence. However, the Council does not need to prove receipt of documents.
2. The bailiff’s records show the enforcement notice was produced on 8 February 2022. Post is handled by a 3rd party postage facility. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the notice was posted. The notice gave 21 days for Mr X to pay or arrange to pay the debt. There is no fault in the bailiff pursuing the debt after this time. On 7 March the bailiff visited Mr X’s address which his complaints confirm. There was no fault in the bailiff applying the standard legal charges (£75 compliance fee and £235 enforcement visit fee).
10. The Ombudsman cannot investigate those matters which Mr X put before the County Court’s TEC because he has used his legal remedy (see paragraph 4 and 6). The TEC’s refusal to allow an out of time application, against the debt recovery order, could be challenged by review by a judge. We cannot investigate the Council’s evidence to the TEC. That evidence was wider than Mr X indicates and includes not receiving representations against the PCN and having correctly served notices.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council wrongly pursued a penalty charge notice debt. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and its bailiff and investigation is not likely to achieve the outcome Mr X wants. We cannot investigate matters considered by the County Court’s Traffic Enforcement Centre.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman