Summary: We will not investigate Mr T’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice and subsequent enforcement action. It would have been reasonable for Mr T to use his right of appeal to the London Tribunal or submit a witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

The complaint

1. Mr T complains the Council took enforcement action against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Mr T says there was no accessible way for him to pay for parking.

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 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)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered information provided by Mr T and the Council. I also reviewed information available on the Council’s website.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr T received a PCN. He says the Council’s online app was not working when the PCN was issued and he did not receive the notice to owner. Mr T says the Council treated him unfairly by using a digital only parking payment and enforcement process and not considering his medical condition.
10. When a council issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal; appeals at this stage are known as informal challenges. If the Council decides not to accept an informal challenge, the motorist can make formal representations against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to London Tribunals.
11. If the motorist does not pay or make formal representations the council will issue a charge certificate, increasing the amount payable by 50%. It may then apply to the TEC to register the debt, before instructing enforcement agents bailiffs to recover it.
12. The Council say they issued all statutory notices in line with relevant legislation, and no formal representation or payment was received within the required timeframes.
13. Had Mr T wished to challenge the PCN he could have made formal representations to the Council explaining his issues with the accessibility of the parking payment system. If the Council rejected these representations, Mr T could have appealed to the London Tribunals.
14. During the complaints process the Council informed Mr T he could file a witness statement to the TEC. If Mr T did not receive the notice to owner or could not access the appeal process in the set timeframes due to his medical condition, he could have contacted the TEC to make a late witness statement. The TEC allows motorists to challenge a council’s escalation of a PCN and, if successful, the TEC may order the Council to take the PCN back to an earlier stage, removing the basis for any surcharges or bailiff fees and reinstating their right of appeal against the PCN.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr T’s complaint. It would have been reasonable for Mr T to use his right of appeal to the London Tribunal or submit a witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman