Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because the validity of the PCN is a matter for the appeals process and Ms X has applied to the court to reinstate her right of appeal. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the conduct of the Council’s enforcement agents as it would be reasonable for her to apply to court to challenge their fitness to practice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council wrongly issued her a penalty charge notice (PCN) for a parking contravention when she had paid for parking using her phone. She says she wrote to the Council to challenge the PCN but did not receive a response until enforcement agents (bailiffs) visited her at home demanding she pay £394. She also complains about the bailiffs’ conduct.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
5. 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 about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (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

7. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The validity of the PCN is a matter for the appeals process. Ms X says she did not receive correspondence from the Council which would have allowed her to appeal but she has applied to the TEC to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case. If the TEC accepts her application it may order the Council to take the process back to an earlier stage, reinstating her right of appeal and reducing the amount of the PCN. If the TEC refuses the application Ms X may apply for a review of its decision. Because Ms X has used the alternative remedy available to her we cannot investigate this part of her complaint.
9. Ms X has also raised concerns about the bailiffs’ conduct but this is an issue which is more suitable for the courts. This is because the courts issue certificates to bailiffs which entitles them to carry out their role and if someone alleges their behaviour falls below the required standards they may challenge their fitness to practice. They can do this by making an application to the court which granted the certificate. If the courts decide a bailiff has acted inappropriately they may suspend or revoke the certificate and this is not an outcome we could achieve. It would therefore be reasonable for Ms X to use this process if she believes the bailiffs have acted inappropriately.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of the PCN because Ms X has applied to the court to make a witness statement. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the bailiffs’ conduct because it would be reasonable for her to go to court about the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman