Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council issued and then reissued two penalty charge notices to his previous address. This is because Mr X has challenged the Council’s actions with the Traffic Enforcement Centre, which is part of Northampton County Court. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to cancel one of the penalty charge notices because it would have been reasonable for him to use his right of appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council twice issued penalty charge notices (PCNs) to his previous address. He challenged the Council’s escalation of the PCNs with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton Court twice and then made representations against them when the Council issued the PCNs for a third time. The Council has cancelled one of the PCNs but declined to cancel the other. Mr X says the system is broken and complains he had to pay enforcement agents (bailiffs) more than £500, take time of work and wasted lots of time.

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. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. Because Mr X has applied to the TEC to challenge the Council’s escalation of the PCNs we cannot investigate any complaint that the Council sent the PCNs to the incorrect address, nor that it reissued the PCNs to the same address following his initial challenge to the TEC.
10. Mr X has now had the opportunity to make representations against the PCNs and the Council cancelled one of them. Mr X believes it should have cancelled the second but this is a matter for the appeals process. If Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response to his representations it would therefore have been reasonable for him to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council sending correspondence about the PCNs to the wrong address because Mr X has challenged its actions with the TEC. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to cancel one of the PCNs because it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman