Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s escalation of a penalty charge notice because Mr X has applied to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to challenge this. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council told him he would have to pay the full amount of the penalty charge if he unsuccessfully appealed as this is not fault and did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s escalation of a penalty charge notice (PCN) and says it has not refunded his £119 court fee. He is also unhappy the Council told him it would not reinstate the discounted period for payment if he made an unsuccessful appeal .

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 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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X used his right to go to the TEC to challenge the Council’s initial escalation of the PCN. Because he used this process the exclusion set out at Paragraph 4 applies. We cannot therefore investigate any complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to the escalation of the original PCN. We also cannot say the Council must reimburse Mr X for the cost of challenging the escalation with the TEC.
8. Mr X is also unhappy the Council told him it would not reinstate the discounted period if he appealed against the PCN after the TEC’s decision. But this is not fault. The TEC’s decision did not revoke the original ‘notice to owner’ and there is no continued right to pay at the discounted rate in the event of an unsuccessful appeal.
9. The Council wrote to Mr X after the TEC’s decision explaining he could pay the PCN at the discounted rate of £65 or make representations and appeal to London Tribunals. Mr X chose to pay the PCN at the discounted rate of £65. While I appreciate he is frustrated he felt he could not challenge the PCN this was his choice and the amount he paid is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s escalation of the original PCN fall outside our jurisdiction and the Council’s refusal to maintain the discounted rate does not amount to fault and did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman