Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s escalation and pursuit of payment for a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and Mr X has an alternative remedy to a court which it would be reasonable for him to use.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains he did not receive correspondence from the Council about a penalty charge notice (PCN) until enforcement agents (bailiffs) contacted him demanding payment. He says he gave the bailiffs his new address when he spoke with them in April 2024 but they sent payment information and then carried out a visit to his old address, which they charged him for, in August.

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. 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)
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 Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Because Mr X did not receive the Council’s correspondence about the PCN he may apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration. If the TEC accepts his application it may order the Council to take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the PCN and removing the basis for the bailiffs’ charges. We would then expect the Council to refund Mr X for these additional charges. Mr X has shown that he intends to follow this process and I consider it reasonable for him to do so.
9. It is also unlikely we could say the bailiffs were at fault for charging Mr X for the visit to his old address as there is insufficient evidence to show it was aware of his new address when it wrote to him and carried out the visit. I appreciate Mr X says he gave the bailiffs his new address in April 2024 but the bailiffs’ contemporaneous records do not support this statement and they have confirmed to Mr X that they no longer have a recording of the call.
10. In cases like this, where there are conflicting statements such as those made by the bailiffs and Mr X, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
11. There is not enough evidence to persuade me, on balance, that Mr X did provide his new address when he called in April 2024 and I could not therefore say the bailiffs were at fault for sending its correspondence and carrying out a visit to his old address. This issue may in any event be remedied by Mr X’s application to the TEC, in the event it is successful, as this would remove the basis for the charge, whether there was fault or not.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or its bailiffs and it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman