Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council reissuing his penalty charge notice. This is because it is reasonable for him to challenge the penalty charge notice through the statutory appeals process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly reissued his penalty charge notice (PCN) after the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) accepted his statutory declaration. He says the TEC’s decision shows the original enforcement action was wrong. He says the Council has not properly considered evidence showing he is not at fault.
2. Mr X says this has caused him distress. He wants the Council to cancel the PCN and acknowledge errors in the handling of his case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. The 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.
6. The law also 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)
7. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals within London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

10. The Council issued Mr X a PCN and later commenced enforcement action against him. Mr X then filed a statutory declaration with the TEC as he did not receive the relevant notices. The TEC accepted his statutory declaration and the Council cancelled enforcement action and refunded the amount Mr X paid towards the PCN. The enforcement agents also refunded any bailiff fees he paid.
11. The Council has now reissued the PCN and restarted the enforcement process against him. Mr X believes the TEC’s acceptance of his statutory declaration means the PCN is invalid and should not have been reissued.

Assessment

12. A person may file a statutory declaration with the TEC where they:
• did not receive the PCN or enforcement notice;
• made representations against the PCN but did not receive a rejection;
• appealed to a parking adjudicator but did not receive a response.
13. The TEC’s acceptance of a statutory declaration does not mean the PCN is wrong. It means there was a problem with the enforcement process and the case should be returned to an earlier stage.
14. We cannot investigate any complaint about the enforcement action itself because Mr X asked the court to consider this and so the matter is no longer within our remit.
15. Now the case has been returned to an earlier stage, Mr X can challenge the PCN through the statutory appeals process. This includes making representations to the Council and, if needed, appealing to London Tribunals. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to use this appeal process if he disagrees with the PCN. I have seen no evidence to suggest it would be unreasonable for him to do so and therefore I will not investigate this aspect of his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the PCN because it reasonable for him to use his alternative right of appeal. We cannot consider the Council’s initial enforcement action as it is no longer within our remit.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman