Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices because Mr Y has already appealed to the Traffic Enforcement Centre about the matter and it is reasonable to expect him to appeal further to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, who are better placed to consider the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has pursued him for PCNs he says he does not owe as the contraventions took placed after he sold the vehicle involved. Mr Y says this has led to enforcement agents threatening to remove goods from his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y has already appealed the majority of the PCNs to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). We cannot investigate the pursuit of these PCNs or the issuing of them as Mr Y has started court action about the matter.
8. Where he has not already done so, it is reasonable to expect him to appeal to the TEC if he wishes to challenge the PCN and it is beyond the time to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal directly. If the TEC accepts Mr Y’s applications it can take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the PCNs and reinstating Mr Y’s right of appeal against them to the Council initially and then the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT). Mr Y can then decide if he wishes to appeal the PCNs or pay the penalties.
9. This is often 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. Further the TEC and the TPT were set up for the purpose of considering such issues about PCNs and who is liable to pay them so are better placed than us to consider the complaint. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because Mr Y has already appealed to the Traffic Enforcement Centre about the matter and it is reasonable to expect him to appeal further to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, who are better placed to consider the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman