Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s representations against a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it would be reasonable for Mrs X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council did not issue a ‘notice of rejection’ in response to her representations against a penalty charge notice (PCN). She says this means she cannot appeal the PCN with the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mrs X.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mrs X made representations against the PCN outside the period allowed by law; the Council refused them but explained that the points she made did not provide grounds to cancel the PCN anyway. Mrs X suggests that responding to her representations meant the Council had to issue a ‘notice of rejection’ to allow her to appeal, but this is not the case. Had Mrs X wished to appeal against the PCN it was for her to ensure she sent her representations in time.
9. We will not in any event investigate this complaint because if Mrs X believes the Council has failed to properly follow the process she can apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration. If the TEC accepts Mrs X’s application, it may order the Council to take the process back to an earlier stage, reinstating her right of appeal against the PCN.
10. I have seen nothing to suggest it would not be reasonable for Mrs X to use this process, and I will not therefore exercise my discretion to investigate her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to take the matter to the TEC. There is also no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman