Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. If Mr X had wished to challenge the penalty charge notice it would have been reasonable for him to make representations to the Council and appeal to London Tribunals, and if Mr X believes he missed his opportunity to do so due to fault by the Council it would have been reasonable for him to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to take the process back to an earlier stage. I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council in the issue of the penalty charge notice or affecting Mr X’s right to appeal against it.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. He disputes the PCN and says he appealed against it but did not receive a response.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
6. 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)
7. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

10. The validity of the PCN is a matter for the appeals process. The Council issued a ‘notice to owner’ setting out Mr X’s right to make representations and appeal to London Tribunals but Mr X did not follow this process. He contacted the Council after it had escalated the case to the next stage and increased the amount of the penalty charge but this was after his appeal right had expired. The Council exercised its discretion to consider his comments but decided there were no good reasons to cancel the PCN. It did not give Mr X the opportunity to appeal against its decision as he did not make valid representations in-time.
11. Mr X did not pay the PCN so the Council escalated the case in accordance with the statutory process and registered the unpaid PCN as a debt with the TEC. Mr X says he wanted to challenge this with the TEC but despite filling out the correct form, the process did not allow him to.
12. I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council in the issue or handling of the PCN and I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use the alternatives available to him to challenge the PCN and/or its escalation of the case, if he had grounds to do so. The complaints process does not provide an alternative to these processes.
13. If Mr X believes he made valid representations against the PCN within the timescales set out in the ‘notice to owner’ he may apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement. Mr X suggests he has already tried to do this but the Council is unaware of any application. This suggests the TEC my have deemed the application incomplete or invalid, and in these circumstances it would have been reasonable for him to try again. He has now paid the PCN but it remains open to him to make a late application and if he is successful, we would expect the Council to refund its enforcement agents’ fees and any surcharges added to the penalty charge. It may also reinstate Mr X’s right of appeal against the PCN itself.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. If Mr X believes the Council failed to follow the proper process in escalating the case it would have been reasonable for him to apply to the TEC to take it back to an earlier stage and to exercise his right of appeal against it. I have seen no evidence of fault affecting the issue of the PCN or Mr X’s right of appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman