Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing the complainant twelve penalty charge notices for alleged vehicle contraventions. This is because the complainant could have reasonably appealed the notices to a statutory tribunal. Further, some of the penalty charge notices were cancelled by the Council and so investigation of these issues would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr X) complains the Council wrongly sent him twelve penalty charge notices (PCNs) for alleged vehicle contraventions. He says four of the PCNs were cancelled on account of lack of CCTV evidence to verify the alleged contravention. However, Mr X says eight of the PCNs were pursued by the Council which he paid. He says these PCNs should have been cancelled for the same reasons the others were. He disputes his liability to pay the PCNs.
2. In summary, Mr X says the matter has affected him financially and caused his stress. He wants the Council to reimburse him the amounts paid.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
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 the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. If the recipient of a PCN does not pay the amount demanded or make any informal challenge against it, the issuing authority may issue a Notice to Owner (NtO) to the vehicles’ registered keeper. This provides an opportunity for the keeper to either pay the PCN at the full amount or make formal representations against it within 28 days of the date of the NtO. If no formal representations are received, the issuing authority can register the amount demanded as a debt at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at county court. If formal representations are received within the 28 day period, the issuing authority may either accept these and cancel the PCN, or issue a Notice of Rejection (NtR) to the registered keeper or party to whom liability has been transferred to. The recipient has a right to appeal to an independent adjudicator (which acts as a staturory tribunal) within 28 days of receiving a NtR.
7. In Mr X’s case, the vehicle was a hire and the car rental company is the registered keeper. With respect to the eight PCNs pursued by the Council, this meant the NtO was sent to the rental company in the first instance. This led to the car rental company making representations to the Council and all eight PCNs being transferred to Mr X as the vehicle hirer and driver. Mr X made representations against the PCNs to the Council which in turn issued a NoR for each. At this point, Mr X could have appealed the PCNs to a statutory tribunal and have these decided by an independent adjudicator. Instead, Mr X paid the PCNs at the discounted rate and discharged his liability. Mr X cannot now dispute his liability to pay the PCNs. I consider he could have reasonably appealed to an adjudicator to dispute his liability. He did not, but I have no legal jurisdiction to investigate as the restriction I outline at paragraph four (above) applies.
8. We will also not investigate matters concerning the four PCNs cancelled by the Council. Investigation of these issues would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could reasonably have appealed the PCNs pursued by the Council to a statutory tribunal. Investigation of the other PCNs would not lead to a different outcome as they were cancelled.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman