Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her correspondence about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because Miss X has challenged the Council’s escalation of the case at court and if she disagreed with the Penalty Charge Notice it would have been reasonable for her to have used her right of appeal.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to properly consider her informal challenge against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). She says the Council’s actions caused her to pay an increased charge that she believes she should not have had to pay.
2. Miss X says the Council’s actions have cost her time and worry.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 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. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
6. 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)
7. 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

8. I considered information provided by Miss X.
9. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. The Council issued Miss X a PCN for parking in a loading bay. Miss X informally challenged the PCN but the Council rejected her challenge. It invited Miss X to submit further evidence to support her challenge, which she did, but the Council did not respond to or consider that evidence. The Council then proceeded through the statutory enforcement process to recover the debt, including issuing Miss X a Notice to Owner, followed by a Charge Certificate, and later registered the PCN with the TEC for recovery.
11. Miss X applied to make a late witness statement as she did not receive the statutory notices due to moving address. The Council did not oppose her application so the TEC accepted it. This cancelled the enforcement process and any associated escalated charges. The Council then issued a new Notice to Owner to Miss X at her new address.
12. Miss X did not respond to the new Notice to Owner so the Council issued a new Charge Certificate which increased the PCN amount. Miss X still did not pay so the Council later registered the PCN with the TEC for recovery again.
13. Miss X has now paid the PCN however she believes she should not have had to pay the increased charge. She remains unhappy the Council did not respond to or consider the further evidence she submitted at the informal challenge stage for the original PCN. The Council has acknowledged this oversight and apologised for it, but Miss X wants it to refund her payment and pay her compensation.

Analysis

14. I acknowledge the Council did not initially consider the further evidence Miss X submitted and that the first notices were sent to the wrong address. However, Miss X has used her right to challenge this with the TEC and therefore we cannot consider the point further. The TEC’s decision to accept Miss X’s late witness statement remedied any flaws in the Council’s handling of the original PCN case and when the Council issued the second Notice to Owner this started the process afresh. Miss X then had the opportunity to make formal representations against the PCN and, if the Council rejected her representations, she could have appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. If she had done so, she could have submitted any further evidence to the Tribunal to consider.
15. While it is understandable that Miss X is frustrated by the Council’s handling of the original case, I do not consider this provided good reason not to use the statutory appeals process when it became available to her. The Tribunal is better placed to deal with appeals and has the power to cancel PCNs where there are good reasons. I therefore consider it would have been reasonable for Miss X to have exercised her appeal rights when the Council issued the second Notice to Owner and I see no reason to exercise our discretion to investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to have made representations to the Council and appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. We cannot investigate Miss X’s concerns about the handling of the original PCN as Miss X has sought a remedy for the issue with the TEC.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman