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

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has wrongly pursued him for several Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) for a vehicle he no longer owned at the time of the contraventions.
2. Mr Y says he feels harassed by enforcement agents trying to collect a debt that is not his and he has received over 40 PCNs for the vehicle. Mr Y says the distress from the issue has affected his marriage and he feels harassed.

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. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y is unhappy that the Council has pursued him for PCNs relating to a vehicle he no longer owns or has possession of and did not have at the time of the contraventions. He says he has received more than 40 PCNs for the vehicle and has been contacted by enforcement agents for the penalty debts. He says he has had the same issues with other councils pursuing him for PCNs, but other councils have accepted his evidence that he was not the owner or keeper of the vehicle at the time of the contraventions but says the Council in this complaint has not accepted this evidence. The Council has instead referred Mr Y to his rights to appeal.
8. Mr Y seeks the end of the Council’s pursuit of him for the payment of the penalties, on the basis that he did not have the vehicle at the time the contraventions happened. The Council has correctly told Mr Y that he has a right to submit a statutory declaration or late witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), asking it to remove the charge certificates for the PCNs.
9. If Mr Y does make a late witness statement and the TEC accepts Mr Y’s application it can take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the PCN and reinstating Mr Y’s right of appeal against it to the Council initially and then the London Tribunals. Mr Y can then decide if he wishes to appeal the PCNs on the basis he was not the registered keeper or owner at the time of the contraventions or pay the penalties.
10. This is free in the initial stages and reasonable adjustments can be made where necessary for access to the service. Consequently, as Mr Y has not provided any other reason why he cannot, it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to use his right to appeal the PCNs. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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 London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman