Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. Mr X used his statutory right of appeal to London Tribunals, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the peripheral matters to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about a Penalty Charge Notice the Authority issued for a moving traffic offence, and its decision not to pause enforcement action while considering a complaint. Mr X said the Authority also sent several letters to the wrong address, gave inconsistent advice and communicated rudely and aggressively. He said it also failed to respond to his complaint about the matter.
2. Mr X said the fine increased to £240, for which he had no warning as he reasonably believed enforcement was paused. Mr X said the matter also caused him significant distress and inconvenience.
3. Mr X wanted the Authority to reinstate the original discounted penalty amount or cancel the fine altogether. He also wanted it to make service improvements and apologise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. The courts have said we can decide not to investigate a complaint about any action by an organisation concerning a matter which the law says we cannot investigate. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2006] EHWCC 2847 (Admin))
6. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Penalty Charge Notices for moving traffic offences

9. If a motorist breaks moving traffic rules, they might receive a fine. This fine is called a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The motorist has 28 days from the date of the notice to pay the fine or make representations against it. If the authority rejects the appeal, the motorist can appeal to London Tribunals. 
10. The authority can issue a charge certificate which increases the fine by 50% if:

• the fine is not paid;
• the motorist does not appeal against the fine; or
• the appeal is not successful.

11. If the fine is still not paid, the authority can register the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court. The authority can then ask enforcement agents (bailiffs) to collect payment for the fine and the bailiff’s costs.

Mr X’s complaint

12. Mr X received a PCN from the Authority, which he appealed. The Authority refused his appeal, and he therefore appealed to London Tribunals.
13. Where a person complains to us about a PCN, we will normally expect them to use their statutory right of appeal. Where a person has already used their right of appeal, we have no power to consider the matter as well. We are not an appeal body, and it is not for us to consider the merits of Mr X’s appeal. We have no power to overturn the tribunal’s decision.
14. We may consider peripheral matters if there is justification for doing so. However, in Mr X’s case there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority that would justify further investigation, given that we cannot investigate the substantive matter.
15. There is insufficient evidence any fault in the Authority allegedly sending correspondence to the wrong address caused Mr X injustice, as he was ultimately able to use his statutory right of appeal. We could not come to sound conclusions about verbal conversations and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Authority’s written communication.
16. There is also insufficient evidence the Authority gave Mr X inconsistent advice. Both the Authority and London Tribunals made clear to Mr X the charge would increase following his unsuccessful appeal if he did not pay the fine. The Authority made no assurances to Mr X that it would pause enforcement action while considering a complaint, and so it was not reasonable of him to assume enforcement was on hold.
17. It is not fault for the Authority not to have paused enforcement action, because the appropriate route for appealing the PCN had already been used unsuccessfully.
18. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is about a PCN he already appealed to London Tribunals. We will not investigate the peripheral matters as there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman