Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice issued to her brother. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the injustice she claims is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council took too long to issue a penalty charge notice (PCN) for a road user charging contravention to her brother (Mr Y), ignored her challenge against it and increased the amount of the penalty charge.

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 Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued Mr Y the PCN in 2021 but Mr X did not receive the correspondence, which went to his old address. Mr X challenged its escalation of the case by applying to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court to make a late witness statement. The TEC accepted Mr X’s application and cancelled the Council’s enforcement action but it did not cancel the PCN. The Council therefore reissued it, as it was entitled to do.
8. The law says councils may serve PCNs for road user charging contraventions to “the registered keeper of the motor vehicle…” (Regulation 7(2) Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement)(England) Regulations 2013). Regulation 8(1) says “Where it appears to the person on whom the penalty charge notice is serviced (“the recipient”) that- (a) one of more of the [appeal] grounds… apply… the recipient may make representations in writing to that effect…”
9. Ms X is not the owner/registered keeper of the vehicle and is not therefore liable for the PCN. She appears to have taken on responsibility for it as she was driving at the time the contravention occurred but this does not change the fact that Mr Y is the one who is liable for the PCN and who had the right to make representations against it.
10. The Council initially declined to consider Ms X’s representations for this reason but when Mr Y gave authorisation for it to deal with Ms X it issued a ‘notice of rejection’. This set out the reasons it would not cancel the PCN and explained Mr Y could either pay the PCN or appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Ms X, acting with Mr Y’s authorisation, did neither. Instead she continued to correspond with the Council outside the appeals process and did not pay. The Council therefore increased the amount of the PCN from £60 to £90.
11. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints. Ms X has now paid the PCN at the increased rate despite not being liable for it but the amount of her payment is not significant enough to warrant investigation.
12. In any event there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in reissuing the PCN or escalating the case and increasing the amount of the penalty charge. It followed the proper process and explained Mr Y’s options on several occasions. Had Mr Y wished to challenge the PCN further it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Ms X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman