Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of two penalty charge notices. This is because the Council has cancelled the second penalty charge notice and agreed to accept payment of the first penalty charge notice at the normal rate of £120. She has therefore paid £60 more than she wanted to but this amount is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains about the Council’s handling and escalation of two penalty charge notices (PCNs). She says she did not receive the initial letters about the PCNs offering her the opportunity to pay them at the discounted rate and was told to pay the PCNs and dispute them later, but the Council is not now responding to her.

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 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

PCN 1

8. Miss X says she did not receive PCN 1 so at the relevant time she applied to the TEC to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case. The TEC accepted her application and the Council restarted the process by issuing the PCN again. But Miss X says she again did not receive the PCN. She complained to the Council and in response the Council offered her the opportunity to pay the PCN at the normal rate of £120, which she did.
9. 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.

10. I appreciate Miss X is frustrated that she did not have the opportunity to pay the PCN at the discounted rate of £60 but the additional cost (£60) is not significant enough to warrant investigation.
11. Further, had Miss X wanted to challenge the Council’s escalation of the reissued PCN it would have been reasonable for her to make a further application to the TEC.

PCN 2

12. Miss X contacted the Council to challenge its escalation of the case prior to the Council registering the case with the TEC. She then paid the PCN at the increased rate of £180. The Council says it told Miss X the TEC would cancel its escalation of the case and that the process would start again, but it accepts this was wrong. It has therefore agreed to cancel the PCN and refund Miss X’s payment of £180. This provides a suitable remedy for the issue and it is unlikely we would recommend anything more. The Council should ensure it refunds Miss X’s payment within four weeks of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has agreed to refund Miss X’s payment for PCN 2 and the remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman