Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the enforcement of a Penalty Charge Notices. It would have been reasonable to expect the complainant to use the statutory representations and appeals procedure.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council took enforcement action without considering her vulnerability and the circumstances around the Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court or use 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 go to court or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(6)(a) and (c), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the rest of England. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), part of the county court, considers applications to set the PCN process back where there has been procedural fault.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Ms X and the Council.
6. I have considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued Ms X three PCNs. Ms X says the PCNs were issued when someone else was in control of the vehicle.
8. When a council issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal; appeals at this stage are known as informal challenges. If the Council decides not to accept an informal challenge, the motorist can make formal representations against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to London Tribunals.
9. If the motorist does not pay or make formal representations the council will issue a charge certificate, increasing the amount payable by 50%. It may then apply to the TEC to register the debt, before instructing enforcement agents bailiffs to recover it.
10. Had Ms X wished to challenge the PCN it would have been reasonable for her to appeal under the statutory process set out above.
11. If for any reason Ms X had not received the notice to owner, she could have made a late witness statement to the TEC. This process allows motorists to challenge a council’s escalation of a PCN and, if successful, the TEC may order the Council to take the PCN back to an earlier stage, removing the basis for any surcharges or bailiff fees and reinstating their right of appeal against the PCN. I note Ms X did contact the TEC to make a late witness statement for one of the PCNs and find it would have been reasonable for Ms X to make late witness statements for the other two PCNs.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because it would be reasonable to expect the complainant to use the representations and appeals procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman