Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant appealed to the tribunal. We will not investigate events after the tribunal made its decision because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) he received when he was suffering from a medical issue which meant he was prohibited from driving until the episode resolved.

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 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 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))
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr X. This includes the correspondence about the PCN and the tribunal decision. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X could not drive due to a medical condition. He stayed at work until he felt better. When he returned to his car, he found the Council had issued a PCN. The Council issued the PCN because Mr X had parked beyond the expiry time of his parking permit.
7. Mr X challenged the PCN and explained why he could not leave the car park before the parking time expired. He stressed he was prohibited from driving until his health improved. The Council rejected his challenge. It accepted he could not drive but said there were various ways he could have extended his parking time until he was well enough to drive.
8. Mr X appealed to the tribunal. The tribunal rejected his appeal and directed Mr X to pay £50 within 28 days. Mr X did not pay so the Council followed the statutory process for non-payment of a PCN. This included giving Mr X opportunities to pay before it registered the debt in court and instructed bailiffs. The bailiffs added a £75 fee.
9. Mr X’s employer sent a cheque to the Council after the Council had passed the case to bailiffs. The cheque was not for the correct amount and should have been sent to the bailiffs. The Council returned the cheque. The case remains with the bailiffs.
10. I cannot investigate the PCN because Mr X appealed to the tribunal. The law says we cannot investigate any matter that has been the subject of an appeal to the tribunal. We can consider if the Council considered mitigation, which it did. The legal restriction applies even though Mr X lost the appeal and may disagree with the Council’s decision regarding mitigation.
11. I will not investigate events since Mr X lost the appeal because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X did not pay the fine as directed by the tribunal and the Council followed the correct process in terms of enforcement of the debt. By the time Mr X offered payment, the amount had increased and he needed to pay the bailiffs; the amount was the PCN, which increased following the court registration, and the bailiff fee.
12. The fine may have increased further if the bailiffs have taken additional action and charged further fees. The law allows bailiffs to charge fees.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because he appealed to the tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman