Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s escalation of a penalty charge notice. This is because Mr X applied to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to take the process back to an earlier stage. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s enforcement agents visited his property after he made his application to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice (PCN). He says he did not receive the PCN, which the Council referred to its enforcement agents (bailiffs), and he is unhappy the bailiffs visited his property after he had challenged the Council’s escalation of the case with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC).

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court but cannot investigate if the person has already been to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. The TEC is part of Northampton County Court. It considers applications from local authorities to pursue payment of unpaid PCNs and from motorists to challenge local authorities’ pursuit of unpaid PCNs.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Because Mr X applied to the TEC to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case by making a statutory declaration we cannot investigate any complaint about the fact he did not receive the PCN. This is in accordance with the exclusion set out at Paragraph 4.
9. The exclusion does not apply to Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s bailiffs visited his property after he had applied to the TEC to challenge the escalation of the case. But there is not enough evidence of fault to investigate this issue further.
10. The Council has provided evidence which shows the TEC notified it of Mr X’s challenge on 11 April 2023 and this was more than two months after the bailiffs’ visit. It does appear Mr X may have tried to challenge the Council’s escalation sooner but Mr X says the TEC did not respond. We cannot hold the Council responsible for any failures by the TEC or say the Council should have placed a hold on the case and prevented the bailiffs’ visit without confirmation from the TEC that Mr X had filed a valid statutory declaration.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of the PCN because he has applied to the TEC to make a late statutory declaration. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the bailiffs’ visit as there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman