Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s issue and handling of four penalty charge notices. This is because we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X by doing so. The Council has now cancelled the penalty charge notices and the law does not allow us to recommend it reimburses him for the cost of his legal fees.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s issue and handling of four penalty charge notices (PCN). Mr X says he is not responsible for the contraventions which led to the issue of the PCNs as he no longer owned the vehicle concerned, which was the subject of a Statutory Off-Road Notification (SORN). He says he had to instruct a solicitor to help clear his name, which cost £1,500. He wants the Council to reimburse the solicitor’s fees.

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.
6. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. 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

8. I considered information provided by Mr X’s representative (Mr Y) and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

10. The Council issued Mr X four PCNs between 22 October and 26 November 2023 for driving in the clean air zone without paying the charge.
11. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs such as those issued to Mr X. When a council identifies a contravention it will issue a PCN to the owner/registered keeper by post. This will detail the amount of the fine and the motorist’s right of appeal, firstly to the council itself and then to a Tribunal. The Council will send the PCN to the address of the registered keeper, as held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).
12. The motorist has 28 days from the date of the notice to pay the penalty charge or make representations against it. If the motorist does not pay the PCN or challenge it, or if their representations are unsuccessful, the council may issue a charge certificate increasing the amount of the penalty charge by 50%.
13. If the charge remains unpaid the council may then register the debt with the TEC and serve an order for recovery, providing a basis for action by enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover payment from the motorist.

PCN 1

14. Mr X made representations against this PCN in-time but the Council took too long to consider them. In accordance with the law it could not therefore pursue the PCN, so it has now cancelled it.
15. We cannot say the Council was at fault for issuing the PCN and the Council’s decision to cancel it provides a suitable remedy for the matter in any event. Investigation would not therefore achieve anything more for Mr X.

PCN 2

16. Mr X made representations against this PCN in-time and the Council considered his representations but decided not to cancel the PCN. Its ‘notice of rejection’ dated 21 December 2023 set out Mr X’s right of appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) and the TPT is the correct body to decide if the PCN was issued correctly.
17. Mr X did not appeal to the TPT but instead provided further information in support of his assertion that he no longer owned the vehicle. The Council was not satisfied the information provided grounds to cancel the PCN so it wrote to Mr X explaining this.
18. Had Mr X wished to challenge the PCN further he, or Mr Y on his behalf, could have appealed to the TPT. The Council’s notice of rejection clearly set out this appeal right and the TPT is the appropriate body to determine the validity of the PCN.
19. Although Mr X provided further information outside the normal time limit for appealing the Council considered this information and gave its reasons for not accepting it. While it is clear Mr X and Mr Y disagree with this decision, it is not one we can question.
20. The Council has now decided to accept that Mr X was not responsible for the PCN and because it has cancelled the PCN it is unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for Mr X.

PCN 3

21. Mr X made representations against this PCN but his representations were outside the period allowed. The Council was not satisfied Mr X’s late representations provided grounds to cancel the PCN so it wrote to Mr X explaining this.
22. The Council considered the information Mr X provided and gave its reasons for not accepting it. While it is clear Mr X and Mr Y disagree with this decision, it is not one we can question.
23. The Council has now decided to accept that Mr X was not responsible for the PCN and because it has cancelled the PCN it is unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for Mr X.

PCN 4

24. Mr X did not make representations against this PCN. The Council therefore escalated the case in accordance with the statutory process set out in Paragraphs 12-14 and registered the case with the TEC. It then instructed bailiffs to recover payment from Mr X.
25. Mr Y sought legal representation to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case and paid solicitors £1,500 to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement. The Council did not oppose the application so the TEC accepted it and ordered the Council to cancel its recovery action and take the process back to an earlier stage. Mr Y wants the Council to reimburse him for the £1,500 he paid the solicitors but we cannot recommend it does so. This is because his application to the court engaged the restriction set out at Paragraph 6 and we cannot therefore investigate the Council’s escalation of the case or recommend a remedy for the cost of his application to the TEC.

Back to top

Final decision

26. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X. The costs Mr X claims result from his application to the TEC and the law does not allow us to recommend the Council reimburses him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman