Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. It would have been reasonable for him to take the matter to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the increased Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) charge he paid to the enforcement agents. He says he did not receive the original PCN and related correspondence from the Council.

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 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).
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X said he first received correspondence about the PCN from the enforcement agents. In its response, the Council said it had sent the necessary correspondence to the address supplied by the DVLA.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at the time. The TEC is better placed to consider such matters thereby placing it outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman