Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because she has sought a remedy through the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court and if she wishes to challenge the penalty charge notice itself it would be reasonable for her to use the statutory appeals process.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice (PCN). She says that repeated procedural errors in the matter have caused her financial and emotional harm. She wants the Council to suspend enforcement action. She also wants the Council to cancel the PCN as she believes it is invalid.

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. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
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. 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 appeals against PCNs issued by London Local authorities and Transport for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Ms X.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council issued Ms X a PCN for an alleged bus lane contravention. Ms X disagrees with the PCN and says she did not receive the statutory notices to challenge it. She tried to file a statutory declaration with the TEC, however the TEC rejected her form due to errors which she says were caused by a court officer.
10. She later filed another statutory declaration, which the TEC accepted. The Council has since complied with the TEC’s decision and cancelled its escalation of the case. It then reissued the PCN, providing a further opportunity to pay it at the discounted rate or challenge it.

The law

11. When a motorist drives in a bus lane the council may send the person responsible (the owner/registered keeper) a PCN. The PCN provides the option to pay a fine- the penalty charge- and gives the keeper the opportunity to challenge the PCN by making formal representations against it. If the keeper does not respond, or the council rejects the representations, it can issue a Charge Certificate which increases the amount of the penalty charge. If the charge still remains unpaid, the council may register the debt with the TEC and issue an Order for Recovery.
12. If the keeper did not receive the Notice to Owner or other statutory notices they may file a witness statement or statutory declaration with the TEC. If the TEC accepts the statement or declaration it will issue a revoking order which revokes the Order for Recovery and Charge Certificate and returns the case to an earlier stage. This gives the keeper the opportunity to challenge the PCN through the statutory appeals process.
13. The Council can continue to take enforcement action against the keeper until it receives notice from the TEC of the keeper’s witness statement or statutory declaration.

Assessment

14. The Council says it only received notice from the TEC about Ms X’s application when it received the revoking order. Therefore, it was entitled to take enforcement action up until this point. We cannot hold the Council responsible for the fact the TEC rejected her initial application or say that it should have placed enforcement action on hold sooner. This is because it says it was not aware of the application until the TEC made its decision and we cannot prove otherwise. In any event, the Council did not take any further action between the Order for Recovery and Ms X’s application to the TEC and the Order for Recovery itself has now been revoked.
15. Now the Council has reissued the PCN Ms X can challenge it through the statutory appeals process and I have seen nothing to show it would be unreasonable for her to do so. Therefore, we will also not investigate the Council’s decision to issue the PCN.
16. We cannot investigate Ms X’s concerns about the alleged errors in the process leading up to the Council registering the debt with the TEC, including whether Ms X received the relevant statutory notices. This is because Ms X has sought a remedy through the TEC. The exclusion set out at Paragraph 3 therefore applies.
17. Ms X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint because she has sought a remedy through the TEC for the Council’s enforcement action and it is reasonable for her to use the statutory appeals process to challenge the PCN.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman