Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant further investigation. It would also be reasonable for Miss X to use her right to submit a late witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council wrongly continued to pass her case to the debt collection agency while she was awaiting a response to her appeal. She would like Council to cancel her Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).

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 is part of the county court.
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X says she paid for her parking ticket but made an error inputting the parking location. She made representations which the Council rejected. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council issuing the PCN or how it considered the representations, so further investigation is unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.
9. Miss X says she appealed the PCN and was waiting for a response. The evidence shows Miss X appealed a different PCN, not the one the Council is pursuing. As it received no further correspondence regarding this PCN, the Council continued to pursue the debt recovery process.
10. The Council sent the Notice to Owner, Charge Certificate and Order for Recovery letter to the vehicle’s registered keeper’s address. Miss X’s partner is the registered keeper and gave consent to Miss X to communicate with the Council. The partner shares the same address as Miss X.
11. It is reasonable to accept Miss X, or her partner, received the multiple correspondence by the Council, before it was passed to the debt collection agency as it was sent to the correct address. So, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant further investigation.
12. Miss X has the right to make a late witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre if she wishes to continue challenging the PCN. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to use this right, so we will not investigate any further.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Miss X can make late witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman