Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice for a clean air zone contravention. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case by making a witness statement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the amount of the Council’s penalty charges for clean air zone (CAZ) contraventions. He is unhappy the Council issued him a penalty charge notice (PCN) for driving in the CAZ without paying the charge and complains the Council failed to respond to his representations against the PCN.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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) The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The amount of the penalty charge for CAZ contraventions is set by law. The Council’s penalty charges comply with the relevant legislation and we could not therefore say it has charged Mr X too much.
7. Whether the PCN issued by the Council is valid, and whether it should have cancelled it based on the grounds Mr X argued in his representations against the PCN, is a matter for the appeals process.
8. Mr X says he made representations to the Council but it failed to respond. In this case, and as the Council has advised, he may wait for the Council to progress the case and register the unpaid PCN as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. He may then apply to make a witness statement on the grounds the Council failed to respond to his representations.
9. If successful, the TEC may order the Council to take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the penalty charge and reinstating Mr X’s right of appeal. It would then be reasonable for Mr X to make representations against the PCN and appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. If the TEC refuses Mr X’s application Mr X may apply for a review of its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the amount of the penalty charge issued by the Council. The validity of the PCN and Mr X’s arguments against it are matters for the appeals process and it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement to challenge the Council's escalation of the case without first responding to his representations against the PCN.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman