Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. The Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant enough injustice to justify us investigating and there is not enough evidence of fault in its escalation of the case and action to recover payment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice (PCN). He also complains the Council sent him letters threatening debt enforcement without explaining his right to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and continued to correspond with him by post despite asking it to email him.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused him distress, anxiety and loss of trust in the Council. He wants the Council to acknowledge its failings, apologise to him and compensate him for the distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council about a PCN. The Council initially told Mr X he had paid the PCN and the case was closed. Mr X said this was incorrect. The Council then accepted its mistake and reopened the case. It also apologised to Mr X and offered him £25 as a goodwill gesture.
8. I am satisfied the Council put right its error through the complaints process and the outstanding injustice is not significant enough to justify us investigating. Mr X had the opportunity to challenge the PCN and did so by appealing to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Therefore, I do not consider the Council’s actions significantly disadvantaged Mr X or affected his right of appeal.
9. With respect to the Council’s enforcement action, the evidence I have seen shows the Council sent Mr X a final notice to pay the PCN before it took formal enforcement action. I see no evidence of fault in relation to this letter as it did not need to include information about the TEC. The evidence shows the Council later sent Mr X an Order for Recovery which contained information about how to apply to the TEC, so his right to go to the TEC was unaffected. The law requires Councils to issue notices by post rather than email, but if Mr X did not receive any relevant notices then it remains open to him to apply to the TEC.
10. As there is no ongoing appeal or application to the TEC, the Council is entitled to continue enforcement action. This is regardless of Mr X’s complaint to the Council or to us. I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s enforcement to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s escalation of the case or to show its actions caused Mr X significant enough injustice to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman