Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement in relation to a penalty charge notice. The enforcement agents cancelled an enforcement fee, and any remaining injustice is not sufficient to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained:
• the Council’s enforcement contractor wrongly sent enforcement agents to his old address, despite knowing his new address from previous enforcement;
• enforcement agents gave false and coercive information to dissuade him from approaching the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC); and
• the Council failed to respond properly to his complaint.
2. Mr X said these issues led to significant stress and inconvenience, and a £235 enforcement fee being wrongly incurred. He wanted the Council to remove the fee, apologise and pay compensation. He wanted its contractor to ensure it holds the correct address and to make service improvements.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complained to the Council about how it administered a PCN. He told it he did not receive correspondence about the PCN until it had been progressed to the TEC, as his address was not correct on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s (DVLA’s) records. Mr X is aware of his right to submit an application to the TEC to ask it to set the process back to an earlier stage so that he can either pay the original PCN or appeal. It is reasonable for him to use that process, and he indicated he intended to do so.
9. Mr X says he subsequently updated his address with the DVLA, however he complained to us that enforcement agents wrongly visited his old address.
10. The Council’s enforcement contractor has more recently removed the £235 enforcement fee that was incurred when it visited the wrong address. Further investigation of this part of the complaint would not lead to a different outcome.
11. Mr X’s complaint to us is also about the information enforcement agents gave him, which he says was wrong and aimed at dissuading him from using his right to approach the TEC. This did not cause Mr X any significant injustice. This is because Mr X was nonetheless aware of his right to refer the matter to the TEC.
12. We will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
13. Mr X says he was caused significant stress and inconvenience as he was required to challenge the Council and its contractor for several months before the enforcement fee was removed. However, the enforcement fee was ultimately removed and any remaining injustice would not be of sufficient severity to justify investigation by the Ombudsman.
14. It is not a proportionate use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaints processes or other peripheral matters in isolation, where there is not a substantive complaint we propose to investigate. We will not investigate the complaint about complaint-handling in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the enforcement agents cancelled an enforcement fee, and any remaining injustice is not sufficient to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman