Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the enforcement of a Penalty Charge Notice. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Also, it is reasonable to expect the complainant to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council incorrectly took enforcement action against him for non-payment of a penalty charge notice (PCN). The Council sent the PCN for driving in the clean air zone (CAZ) without paying the charge. He complains the spelling of the person’s name on the letter from the enforcement agents does not match his own.
2. Mr X says he provided the Council with evidence of the correct spelling of his name on relevant DVLA documents. He says, because of this issue, the Traffic Enforcement Centre cannot process his out of time statutory declaration as the form must be signed by the person named as the respondent. Mr X says he cannot do this because of the spelling error.
3. Mr X paid £500 to enforcement agents to release his car after they clamped it. He thinks the Council should refund the money paid and provide him with compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
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))
6. We cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court or use 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 go to court or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(6)(a) and (c), as amended)
7. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the rest of England. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), part of the county court, considers applications to set the PCN process back where there has been procedural fault.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information from the complainant and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. When Mr X became aware of the PCN he contacted the Council to query it. He told the Council he had not received the original PCN. Because the Council had progressed the case and Mr X no longer had the right to appeal against the PCN, the Council told him that he could apply to the TEC to make a late statutory declaration when he received the Order for Recovery.
10. Based on the evidence I have seen, there is no suggestion the Council failed to follow the proper process in escalating the PCN and registering it with the court, or that there has been fault by the enforcement agents in pursuing Mr X for payment. The Council sent the PCN to the registered keeper of the vehicle based on details provided by the DVLA. The enforcement agents checked these details with the DVLA again before carrying out an enforcement visit and clamping Mr X’s vehicle. The notices were sent to Mr X based on information held by the DVLA. This is the correct process for the Council to follow. I understand that, through this process, Mr X became aware of the spelling error in the name provided by the DVLA and he likely subsequently resolved the issue with the DVLA. But, it is not fault by the Council to have sent the notices using the spelling provided by the DVLA. So, we will not investigate.
11. So far as Mr X complains he did not receive the original PCN and he has experienced issues with the TEC processing his forms, I consider it would be reasonable to expect Mr X to pursue these matters with the TEC. After contacting the TEC, the Council told Mr X that he could make an out of time statutory declaration if he provided formal proof of identity to the TEC. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have taken this action with a view to resolving the issues with the TEC processing his late declaration. If Mr X’s application is successful, the TEC may order the Council to take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the penalty charge and removing the basis for any charges added by the Council’s enforcement agents. We will not investigate this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the enforcement of a Penalty Charge Notice. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Also, it is reasonable to expect the complainant to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman