Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and related enforcement action. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about removal of his vehicle after the Council sent Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) to his old address. Mr X says a notice warning of seizure was left on his vehicle while he was on holiday and then his close relative died suddenly. Mr X believes the Enforcement Agent acting for the Council did not give him enough time or discretion to retrieve his vehicle which he needed to attend his relative’s funeral. He believes the Council ignored his vulnerability and circumstances. He wants the Council to reimburse the charges he incurred to get his vehicle back and compensation for the distress caused at an already upsetting time.

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 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)
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. The London Tribunals can then consider parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including the Enforcement Agents it appointed in Mr X’s case.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In July 2024, the Council issued a PCN to the address registered for Mr X’s vehicle. This was an old address as the details for vehicle had not been updated with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). Responsibility for updating a vehicle’s address lies with its registered keeper. The Council instructed an Enforcement Agent to recover the PCN charges.
8. Mr X complains about the Enforcement Agent’s action when it removed his vehicle. Mr X says he was on holiday abroad at the time and did not have enough notice to retrieve his vehicle. In addition, Mr X’s close relative died suddenly while he was away, and he needed the vehicle to attend their funeral. Mr X complained to the Enforcement Agents about its action. It apologised to Mr X for not exercising discretion given Mr X’s bereavement and offered him a payment of £75 in recognition that it added to his existing distress at the time.
9. Mr X complained to the Council about the same issues. The Council explained Mr X believes the Council should not have issued the PCN, he has the right to submit a late witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), asking it to remove the charge certificate for the PCN. If the TEC accepts Mr X’s application, it can take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the PCN and reinstating Mr X’s right of appeal against it to the Council initially and then the London Tribunals. It can also order the return of money Mr X may have already paid to retrieve his vehicle from Enforcement Agents while the process is ongoing. Mr X can then decide if he wishes to appeal the PCN or pay the penalty, potentially at a lower amount.
10. We will not investigate this complaint because it would be reasonable for Mr X to use his appeal rights with the TEC and then the London Tribunals. We are not an appeal body, and the court and tribunal are best placed to consider the matters Mr X raises.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to submit a statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre, and if successful, to then use his statutory right of appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman