Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s escalation of a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because Ms X has already received a remedy for part of the issue through the courts and it is unlikely we could achieve significantly more.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains she did not receive correspondence from the Council about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). She also complains the Council’s enforcement agents (bailiffs) failed to consider her vulnerabilities when collecting payment for the PCN.
2. Ms X says the situation has caused her significant distress, anxiety and financial harm.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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,
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained,
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

4. When considering complaints, 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.
5. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916).
6. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is part of the Northampton County Court. It considers applications from local authorities to pursue payment of unpaid PCNs and from motorists to challenge local authorities.
7. The law also 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)
8. 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

9. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
10. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

11. Because Ms X did not receive the Council’s correspondence about the PCN she applied to the TEC to make an Out of Time Witness Statement. The TEC accepted her application and ordered the Council to take the process back to an earlier stage. We therefore cannot investigate any complaint about the Council’s escalation of the case in accordance with the exclusion set out at Paragraph 5.
12. The Council has now refunded Ms X’s payment and re-issued the PCN. This has reinstated Ms X’s right of appeal against it and Ms X has made formal representations to the Council. If the Council refuses Ms X’s representations, and if Ms X wishes to challenge the PCN further, it would be reasonable for her to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Conduct of bailiff

13. Although the TEC has decided to take the PCN back to an earlier stage this does not show any flaw by the Council, or its bailiffs, in escalating the case or seeking to recover payment for the PCN from Ms X. The Council has provided evidence which shows the bailiffs notified Ms X of the debt prior to visiting her property and we cannot prove the correspondence was not sent.
14. Ms X is unhappy the Council told her that further action was on hold prior to the bailiffs’ visit, but the correspondence sent by the Council was sufficient to show the hold had been removed and that failure to pay the PCN may result in a bailiff visit to her property.
15. I acknowledge Ms X has raised concerns the bailiff did not consider her vulnerabilities when recovering payment from her. However it is unlikely that an investigation by us would reach a clear enough view, on the balance of probabilities, about what happened.
16. The Council’s complaint response shows that it has acknowledged Ms X’s vulnerabilities, apologised for any distress caused and undertaken to improve its communications going forward. I do not consider that further investigation would achieve a substantially different outcome, particularly because the Council has now refunded the payment and reinstated Ms X’s right of appeal against the PCN as a result of her application to the TEC. It is in any event not for us to decide whether the Council’s bailiffs complied with their legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she has already received a remedy through court and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve significantly more for her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman