Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to him and the rejection of his representations against the PCN was unfair. He has also complained about the increase in the penalty before he received the rejection and that when he was sent correspondence about the PCN by email, he was unable to open the attachments.
2. Mr Y says this has caused him distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 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. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. 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

7. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr Y is unhappy with the Council’s rejection of his representations against the PCN he has received. Mr Y says the PCN was wrongly issued, and the rejection of his representations was unfair. He has also complained about the increase in the penalty before he received the rejection and that when he was sent correspondence for the PCN by email, he was unable to open the attachments.
9. Mr Y has a right to appeal the PCN further to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) if he wishes. The TPT can consider how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s representations, and whether it followed the correct process in considering his challenge to the PCN. If it finds that it did not consider his representations properly or did not respond appropriately, it can then consider the issues Mr Y has raised as the reasons why the PCN is either invalid or should not be enforced.
10. Usually, a person must make an appeal to the tribunal within 28 days of a Notice of a Notice of Rejection to representations being issued. Mr Y may therefore need to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) based at Northampton County Court, to seek permission to appeal to the TPT after the deadline. He can include the issues he has raised as part of his late statutory declaration, as reasons why he has been unable to previously appeal to the TPT.
11. The TPT and the TEC are free in the initial stages and can make reasonable adjustments if necessary. I would therefore consider it reasonable for Mr Y to use his right of appeal.
12. Further, the TPT and TEC have been set up for the purpose of considering the type of issues Mr Y has raised and the TPT has the power itself to cancel the PCN if warranted. The TEC also has the ability to put Mr Y back in the PCN process to an earlier stage if needed and therefore reduce the penalty to the lower amounts incurred earlier in the process. Mr Y can then decide if he wishes to pay the penalty or appeal. The TEC and the TPT are therefore better placed than the Ombudsman, who can only ask the Council to consider cancelling the PCN, to consider this complaint. We will therefore not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman