Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s issue of correspondence relating to a penalty charge notice. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to make a late witness statement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council claims to have sent him an email about a penalty charge notice (PCN) but he did not receive it. He says this wrongly led to escalation of the PCN, which has increased the amount of the penalty charge and added additional fees.

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 Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X has variously claimed that he did not receive the original PCN, ‘notice to owner’ or the Council’s response to his representations against the PCN.
8. The Council says Mr X made formal representations in response to the ‘notice to owner’ and so he must have received the notice.
9. Where a motorist claims fault in the escalation of a PCN they may apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement. They may do this on the several grounds, including that they did not receive the ‘notice to owner’ or made representations against it but did not receive a response.
10. These points cover the issues Mr X has raised about the Council’s handling of the PCN and the witness statement process therefore applies. This provides an alternative remedy for the complaint as set out at Paragraph 3 and it would be reasonable for Mr X to use it in this case.
11. If the TEC accepts Mr X’s application it may order the Council to take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the PCN and removing the basis for any additional fees relating to it.
12. The Council provided Mr X with information about the process in its ‘Order for recovery’, issued on 17 June 2025. The document set out Mr X’s right to make a witness statement and included the form for doing so. This was correctly addressed and I have seen nothing to suggest Mr X did not receive it as a result of any fault by the Council. I therefore consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use this process at the time.
13. While the time limit for making a witness statement has now expired, Mr X still has the option to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement and it would be reasonable for him to use this process if he wishes to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case further.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman