Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council sending three Penalty Charge Notices to his previous address. This is because he has already appealed to the Traffic Enforcement Centre for the Penalty Charge Notices, therefore the matter is outside our jurisdiction. We will not investigate his complaint the Council did not take his vulnerabilities into account before taking enforcement action. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council sent correspondence about three Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) to his old address. He said he only became aware of the PCNs when the Council’s enforcement agents clamped his car. Mr X also said the Council did not take his vulnerabilities into account when taking enforcement action. Mr X paid part of the monies owed and said this caused financial hardship. Mr X wants the enforcement fees removed.

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. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (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.
5. 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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X said the Council sent three PCNs to his old address and he only became aware of these when enforcement agents contacted him for payment. However, Mr X has appealed to the Traffic Enforcement Centre about the PCNs. I therefore cannot investigate this part of his complaint. That is because the law says we cannot investigate complaints where a person has appealed.
9. Mr X said he told the Council about his vulnerabilities and how it affected his ability to pay. However, he stated it did not take his vulnerabilities into account when taking enforcement action.
10. The evidence shows that the Council was unaware of Mr X’s vulnerabilities when taking initial enforcement action. On learning about these, the Council referred him to support charities. It recorded his circumstances and told him the enforcement agency had a dedicated welfare team who would assess his vulnerability provided evidence was sent. The law does not require enforcement agents to stop action solely because someone is vulnerable; rather, they must take it into account and offer an opportunity for advice and support. The records indicate the Council did so.
11. Given this, I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault, in how the Council responded to Mr X’s reported vulnerabilities, to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has already appealed to the Traffic Enforcement Centre for the PCNs therefore this part of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction. And for the remaining matter, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman