Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council sending a Penalty Charge Notice to his previous address, and it did not take his vulnerabilities into account. This is because he has already appealed to the Traffic Enforcement Centre for the Penalty Charge Notice. The Council has already written to Mr X to accept that it did not contact him after he disclosed his disability. It has apologised and taken steps to improve its process. I consider this to be a satisfactory remedy to this part of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council sent correspondence about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to his old address. He says he only became aware of the PCN when the Council’s enforcement agents contacted him for payment.
2. Mr X also says that the Council did not take his vulnerabilities into account.

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 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)
5. 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.
6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X says the Council sent a PCN to his old address and he only became aware of it when enforcement agents contacted him for payment. However, I note that Mr X has already appealed to the Traffic Enforcement Centre about the PCN. I therefore cannot investigate this part of his complaint.
10. Mr X also said the Council did not take his vulnerabilities into account. He stated that the Council should have done a welfare check to see if he was vulnerable before issuing the PCN.
11. The Council has confirmed PCNs are issued through an automated process. There is no requirement for the Council to check if a personal is vulnerable before issuing a PCN.
12. I can see that the Council have already written to Mr X to accept that the process for challenging a PCN should have been more inclusive and responsive to his needs. It stated that it is reviewing its internal procedures to ensure that disclosures of disability are followed up with the appropriate enquiries or adjustments as necessary. I consider this to be a satisfactory remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has already appealed to the Traffic Enforcement Centre for the PCN therefore this part of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction. The Council has accepted that it did not contact him after he advised he has a disability. It has apologised and confirmed it has taken steps to improve its process in this regard. I consider this to be a satisfactory remedy to this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman