Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Mrs Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals, who are better placed to consider the complaint. We will also not investigate her complaint about enforcement agents as any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained the Council failed to treat her husband’s representations against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) properly, leading her to not being able to appeal to the London Tribunals, which led to her needing to pay an escalated penalty and bailiff fees. She also feels the bailiffs acted unprofessionally and disproportionately by arriving at her home early in the morning and were unhelpful.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs Y has a right to appeal the PCN further to the London Tribunals if she wishes. The London Tribunals can consider how the Council dealt with Mrs Y’s appeal, and whether it followed the correct process in considering her representations, sent in by her husband. If it finds that it did not consider her representations properly, it can then consider the issues Mrs Y has raised as the reasons why the PCN is either invalid or should not be enforced.
8. Usually, a person must make an appeal to the tribunal within 28 days of a Notice of Rejection to representations being issued. Mrs Y may therefore need to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) to seek permission to appeal to the London Tribunals after the deadline. She can do this despite having paid the enforcement agents under duress. However, this would be something which Mrs Y may wish to approach the London Tribunals to confirm.
9. The London Tribunals is usually free in the initial stages and can make reasonable adjustments if necessary. I would therefore consider it reasonable for Mrs Y to use her right of appeal. If the TEC accepts Mrs Y’s application it can take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the PCN and reinstating Mrs Y’s right of appeal against it to the Council initially and then the London Tribunals. Mrs Y can then decide if he wishes to appeal the PCN or pay the penalty. It can also order the Council to refund Mrs Y for the enforcement agents fees.
10. Further, the tribunal has been set up for the purpose of considering the type of issues Mrs Y has raised and has the power itself to cancel the PCN if warranted. It is therefore better placed than the Ombudsman, who can only ask the Council to consider cancelling the PCN, to consider this complaint. We will therefore not investigate.
11. Mrs Y has said the enforcement agents caused her distress by arriving at her property early in the morning and were unhelpful and had a dismissive attitude while they were attending her property. It is understandable that the use of enforcement agents can cause distress and worry. However, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation.
12. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter. Therefore, while Mrs Y may not have had a pleasant experience, the upset caused is not significant enough of a harm to justify investigating this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mrs Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals, who are better placed to consider the complaint. We will also not investigate her complaint about enforcement agents as any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman