Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about enforcement action related to a Penalty Charge Notice. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by cancelling the Penalty Charge Notice and all related liabilities.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains enforcement agents visited his home to collect payment for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) while enforcement action should have been paused. Mr X says this has had a serious impact on his mental health because of the worries he has about enforcement agents attending his home. He wants the Council to stop all enforcement action, while waiting on the Traffic Enforcement Centre’s decision and remove any enforcement fees during this time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions 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.
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X filed a statutory declaration with the TEC, which if accepted would enable him to appeal the PCN he was issued. The Council confirmed to Mr X, it had paused enforcement action until the outcome of the TEC decision.
9. Mr X complained a couple months later enforcement agents attended his property demanding payment. He says he was forced to pay them although enforcement action should have been on hold.
10. The Council accepted it had made an error in restarting enforcement action when it should have been on hold. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

11. The Council agreed to cancel the PCN, all related liabilities and refund the payment Mr X made to enforcement agents. The Council should complete the agreed actions within four weeks of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve it early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman