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

The complaint

1. The Council sent correspondence and enforcement agents for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to Mr Y’s previous address two years after the penalty was allegedly incurred in 2020 in a car that Mr Y says he does not own.
2. Mr Y says the correspondence led to him driving a significant distance to the property the correspondence was sent to, to then receive the correspondence telling him he owes money he says he does not, causing him inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. 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)
5. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside 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 says it issued a PCN to Mr Y for a parking penalty in October 2020. Mr Y says he did not receive any correspondence about the PCN and no longer lives at the address and does not own the vehicle.
8. In 2023, Mr Y was sent a Notice of Enforcement, at the address he says he does not live at. This said Mr Y owed £159. He was contacted by the tenants of the property, who he agreed could open the letter. He says the tenants became extremely anxious and he felt he had to drive to the area to solve the issue, costing him £78 in fuel. Mr Y complained to the Council, in part that the debt had been incurred outside of the law and saying he did not recognise the legitimacy of the debt claim.
9. The Council responded a few days later in March. It said the PCN had been incurred legitimately and had followed the correct process. A further response to Mr Y’s complaint was given in April, which again found the debt remained outstanding and needed to be paid. Mr Y then approached us.

Analysis

10. Mr Y’s complaint suggests that he does not agree the debt is owed, in part after the time it took for Mr Y to become aware of the PCN and in its legitimacy in law. If Mr Y wishes to challenge these points, he can do so through the appeals process.
11. Mr y says he did not receive the correspondence for the PCNs until the Notice of Enforcement in 2023. This also means he did not have the opportunity to make representations to the Council or the Traffic Penalty Tribunal as part of the process. This is a ground on which Mr Y can make an out of time witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) based at Northampton County Court and challenge the debt apparently owed to the Council by asking the TEC to remove the Charge Certificate.
12. 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 Council initially and then the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Mr Y can then decide if he wishes to appeal the PCN and raise the issues, including that the PCN was incurred over three years ago, that he has referred to in his complaint correspondence or pay the penalty. The TEC also has the power to remove any charges incurred by enforcement agents in pursuing the debt if it sees fit to.
13. This 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 use his right to appeal to challenge the debt and the PCN. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and then the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman