Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. He has used his alternative remedy to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s subsequent enforcement action. Mr X’s concerns about the handling of his subject access request are better addressed with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice (PCN). He says the Council did not process information he sent it and escalated the case without giving him an opportunity to make payment or appeal. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his subject access request (SAR).
2. Mr X says the matter has caused him financial loss, anxiety and inconvenience. He says the Council’s actions caused him to lose his appeal rights.
3. Mr X wants the Council to acknowledge its failings, review his case and consider withdrawing the PCN and related charges. He also wants the Council to respond to his SAR, correct inaccuracies and offer him compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,

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

5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. 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)
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. A motorist can apply to the TEC if they did not receive the PCN or made representations to the Council about the PCN and did not receive a response. If the TEC accepts the application, this will bring the matter back to an earlier stage and allowed the motorist to challenge the PCN through the statutory appeals process. The motorist generally must make an application within 21 days of receiving the order of recovery, however the TEC has discretion to accept an application made outside this time limit.
11. Mr X made an out of time application to the TEC, but the TEC rejected it. Because Mr X used his alternative remedy to the court, we cannot investigate the PCN process before the Council registered it with the court.
12. After the TEC refused his application, Mr X then tried to appeal the PCN with the Council, however the Council refused his appeal. As the TEC had rejected Mr X’s application, he had no further right of appeal. I am therefore satisfied the Council was entitled to refuse to consider his further attempts to appeal.

Enforcement fees

13. Mr X complains about the Council’s escalation to enforcement action and the related charges.
14. As Mr X had no outstanding appeal or application with the TEC, the Council was entitled to take recovery action and instruct enforcement agents. Enforcement agents can add a compliance fee when they issue a notice. The charges added in Mr X’s case appear to be in line with the allowable charges. There is not enough evidence of fault on this point to justify us investigating.

SAR

15. Mr X’s concerns about the handling of his SAR are better addressed with the Information Commissioner’s Office. The ICO considers complaints about personal data and the handling of SARs. I will therefore not investigate this aspect of his complaint.

Complaint handling

16. Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaints. As a public funded body we must use our resources carefully. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling in isolation if we are not investigating the substantive issue. As we are not investigating the PCN or related enforcement action then I will also not investigate the Council’s handling of his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has used his alternative remedy to the court, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s subsequent enforcement action and his concerns about the SAR are better addressed with the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman