Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is invalid because it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Mr X wants the Council to cancel the PCN and pay compensation.

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 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X. This includes documents and correspondence about the PCN. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. A person can pay a PCN or, if they dispute the fine, they can follow the statutory process and appeal to the tribunal. If they neither pay nor appeal councils can register the fine in court and instruct bailiffs.
6. The Council placed a PCN on Mr X’s car for parking in a resident’s bay without displaying a permit. The Council did not hear from Mr X so it issued a Notice To Owner (NTO) which gave Mr X the chance to start the statutory process or pay the fine. Mr X did not contact the Council until after the 28 days to respond using the NTO had expired.
7. Mr X then disputed the PCN and said it breached the Protection of Freedoms Act. The Council said it was too late to challenge the fine but explained how he could pay. It said if he did not pay the Council would register the PCN in court but, if he had grounds, he could apply to the court for a witness statement.
8. Mr X continued to challenge the fine with the Council but did not use the statutory process or pay. The Council registered the fine in court and instructed bailiffs. The Council told Mr X he could apply for a late witness statement. I do not know if Mr X applied for a witness statement.
9. Mr X complained to us and said the PCN is invalid because it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act.
10. The Protection of Freedoms Act refers to fines issued by private landowners for parking on private land. The Act does not refer to parking on the public highway or to fines issued by councils. However, if Mr X thought the PCN was invalid in any way, he could have followed the statutory process. He could have challenged the fine using the NTO, which he confirmed he received, and then appealed to the tribunal if the Council rejected his challenge. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal because the tribunal is the correct body to consider PCN disputes. The tribunal could have considered Mr X’s submission that the PCN breaches the Protection of Freedoms Act. If appropriate, the tribunal has the power to cancel a PCN – we do not have that power.
11. The PCN has now increased and is with bailiffs. I appreciate this is stressful and expensive but it reflects the correct process for when a person has neither paid nor successfully challenged a PCN.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman