Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. It is reasonable for him to use his alternative remedy to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. The actions of the Council’s enforcement agents have not caused him significant enough injustice to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice (PCN) and its escalation of the PCN. He also complains about the conduct of the Council’s enforcement agents.
2. Mr X says the matter has impacted him financially and made him lose trust in the Council. He wants the Council to review its process and its enforcement agents, to apologise to him and to refund him the PCN in full.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,

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

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
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. The ability to make an application to the TEC also provides an alternative remedy for any complaint of fault in the process.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. If someone disagrees with a PCN, they can appeal to an independent tribunal before the Council escalates the charge and takes enforcement action. If someone says they did not receive the statutory notices, they can apply to the TEC and if it accepts the application, it can return the case to an earlier stage and restore the person’s right of appeal.
10. Mr X says he could not appeal because he did not receive the notices. In these circumstances, he could have applied to the TEC, which could have restored his right of appeal. The Order for Recovery explains how to do this. The TEC can also accept late applications. I have seen no evidence to suggest it was unreasonable for Mr X to apply to the TEC and therefore I will not investigate this aspect of his complaint.

Enforcement agents

11. Mr X also complains about the conduct of the Council’s enforcement agents and their refusal to accept his request for a payment plan.
12. Mr X says he struggled to pay the debt but the Council’s registration with the TEC allowed the enforcement agents to recover payment from him in full, including by removing his goods. When the enforcement agent refused Mr X’s request for a payment plan and explained the next step would be to visit his property, Mr X made payment to avoid further escalation.
13. While the agent’s refusal to agree a payment plan caused him some worry and inconvenience, I do not consider this amounts to a significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation or a remedy.
14. If Mr X remains concerned about the agents’ conduct, he can complain to the Enforcement Conduct Board or he may apply to the court to challenge the agent’s fitness to practice.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to go to the TEC. Any injustice from the enforcement agents’ actions is not significant enough to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman