Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s issue and handling of his representations against a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s threat to restrict his communications as this amounted to a warning about his behaviour and it has not yet applied any restriction. The issue has not therefore caused Mr X significant injustice at this stage.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. He is unhappy the Council refused to cancel the PCN in response to his representations and says the Council lied, manipulated evidence and committed fraud. He also complains the Council has threatened to restrict his communication.

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 has a right of appeal, reference or review 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 use this right. (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 provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

The appeals process

8. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for moving traffic contraventions. When a council identifies a contravention it will issue a PCN to the owner/registered keeper by post. This will detail the amount of the fine and the motorist’s right of appeal, firstly to the council itself and then to a Tribunal.
9. The motorist has 28 days from the date of the notice to pay the penalty charge or make representations against it. For the first 14 days after the PCN the motorist may pay at a discounted rate of 50% of the full fine.
10. If the motorist does not pay the PCN or challenge it, or if their representations are unsuccessful, the council may issue a charge certificate increasing the amount of the penalty charge by 50%. If the charge remains unpaid the council may then register the debt with the county court and serve an order for recovery, providing a basis for action by enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover payment from the motorist.

Analysis

11. If Mr X wanted to challenge the PCN and the basis for the Council’s decision not to cancel it, it would have been reasonable for him to follow the appeals process set out above.
12. I appreciate Mr X is concerned about the possibility the Council may restrict his communications in the future but the warning itself did not cause him significant injustice. The restriction of Mr X’s communications may amount to a significant injustice but the Council has not yet taken this step. It currently considers Mr X’s behaviour to be unreasonable but has confirmed that in the event he does not send any further enquiries, complaints or abusive emails about the matter it will take no further action. It is only if Mr X continues to pursue the issue in a way the Council deems unreasonable that it will consider whether to take steps to restrict his communication and even then this is only one of a number of possibilities.
13. If the Council decides to restrict Mr X’s communications in the future, and if Mr X believes the decision was not made correctly, he may raise a new complaint. But as the Council has not taken such steps to date any complaint about this issue is premature.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice Mr X claims stems from the PCN and it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. The Council’s warning about Mr X’s behaviour has not caused significant injustice warranting further investigation but if it decides to restrict his communications in future Mr X may raise a new complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman