Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because it would be reasonable for her to take the matter to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice (PCN). She says she did not receive the original notice and could not access information about it through the Council’s website. The Council passed the case to its enforcement agents (bailiffs) and Mrs X paid it an increased rate of £535, which she feels is unfair. She wants the Council to cancel the PCN and refund her payment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 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

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X’s main concerns relate to the issue of the PCN and alleged failures by the Council in its handling of the case which, she suggests, prevented her from appealing against it. The Council disputes these allegations and says it followed the proper process in issuing the PCN and dealing with Mrs X’s challenge to it.
7. Mrs X is aware that she may apply to the TEC to make a witness statement on this point and that if this is successful, the TEC has the power to take the process back to an earlier stage, reinstating her right of appeal and reducing the amount of the PCN. She says she applied to the TEC but it rejected her application because she had not given the correct PCN reference number.
8. Mrs X raised this point with the Council as part of her complaint and it has given her the correct PCN reference on several occasions. From the information she has provided, it appears the reference number was initially incorrect because she had added an extra digit at the end. Whatever the issue, Mrs X is now aware of the correct PCN reference and, if she wishes to challenge the Council’s handling of the case, it would be reasonable for her to go back to the TEC with a new, valid application. While she is now strictly outside the timescales for making an application, the TEC allows motorists to make late applications and will consider Mrs X’s reasons for not making her application in-time. If the TEC decides not to accept her application, Mrs X may apply for a review of its decision.
9. I have seen nothing to suggest it would be unreasonable for Mrs X to use this process and I will not therefore exercise my discretion to investigate the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman