Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable for Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council incorrectly pursued him for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Mr Y says he did not commit the contravention and believes the Council must have fraudulently used photographs from a previous contravention.
2. Mr Y says he has been distressed by the issue and feels he has been harassed into paying £514.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. 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. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued a PCN to Mr Y in October 2021. Mr Y disputes his responsibility for the PCN. The Council then registered the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. Mr Y was later contacted by bailiffs about the penalty debt. He paid the bailiffs £514.
8. Mr Y later realised he had a tracker in his car for his insurance provider and he could provide evidence showing he had not used the car on the day of the contravention. The Council has not accepted an email from his insurer about the use of the tracker as evidence that the PCN should not have been issued. Mr Y approached us in September 2022.

Analysis

9. Mr Y can apply to the TEC to make a late statutory declaration, explaining he was not able to appeal sooner as he was unable to obtain the evidence he now has. If the TEC accepts Mr Y’s application, it has the power to 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 Council initially and then the London Tribunals. It can also order the return of any costs from the enforcement process if it sees fit to do so. If the TEC accepts the application, Mr Y can then decide if he wishes to appeal the PCN or pay the penalty.
10. 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.
11. The process described above is often free in the initial stages and reasonable adjustments can be made where necessary for access to the service. Consequently, as Mr Y has not provided any other reason why he cannot, it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and then to the London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman