Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices because we are satisfied with the offer the Council has already made to remedy the issue and it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals if he wishes to challenge the validity of the enforcement of the charges.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council failed to communicate with him about a series of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) and then towed his vehicle without him having chance to pay.
2. Mr Y says this has resulted in the penalty amounts increasing and costs for his vehicle being stored after it was towed while Mr Y was out of the country and therefore unaware of the towing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
7. 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr Y complained the Council failed to properly communicate with him about various Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) and about the towing of his vehicle, which occurred while he was abroad following the death of a family member. The Council has apologised for the problems Mr Y experienced with communication after he returned home from abroad and found his vehicle had been towed. It also agreed to speak to staff about the service provided to prevent reoccurrence and offered to refund £825 of the money, which amounted to over £2,000, Mr Y paid to have his car released from a pound. Mr Y also objected to the enforcement of the PCNs itself, as he says he did not receive the PCN correspondence from the Council.
10. If Mr Y wishes to challenge the validity of the PCNs enforcement, he will need to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre and then the London Tribunals. Mr Y can submit an out of time witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), asking it to remove the charge certificate for the PCNs. If the TEC accepts Mr Y’s application 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 London Tribunals. Mr Y can then decide if he wishes to appeal the PCNs or pay the penalties.
11. 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. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
12. Further, the Council has properly considered and investigated the complaint and its impact, so it is unlikely the Ombudsman would be able to add to the original investigation. Further, the Council has offered a proportionate and appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by its fault. Consequently, it is unlikely further consideration of this complaint would lead to a different outcome. We are therefore satisfied with the offer the Council has made to remedy the complaint and we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because we are satisfied with the offer the Council has already made to remedy the issue and it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals if he wishes to challenge the validity of the PCN enforcement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman