Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s recovery of a penalty charge notice. She has used her alternative remedy to the Traffic Enforcement Centre, which is part of Northampton County Court.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s recovery action for a penalty charge notice (PCN). She says she already paid the PCN in full.

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. 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)
4. 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 provides an alternative remedy for any complaint of fault in the process.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The evidence I have seen shows:
• In November 2023, the Council issued Mrs X a PCN for stopping on zigzag lines within a pedestrian crossing area;
• The Council later escalated the PCN and registered the debt with the Court for recovery;
• In May 2024, Mrs X filed a witness statement with the TEC which it accepted and issued an Order cancelling the recovery action and bringing the PCN back to an earlier stage;
• In June 2024, the Council sent Mrs X a letter confirming it had implemented the TEC Order. It told Mrs X she could pay £65 within 14 days, £130 within 28 days or appeal to London Tribunals Environment and Traffic Adjudicators;
• In August 2024, the Council sent Mrs X a letter about her appeal to the Adjudicator, which included its evidence pack in response to her appeal;
• In September 2024, prior to receiving the Adjudicator’s decision, Mrs X paid the Council £65. This was the discounted amount of the PCN shown on the original PCN, which was included in the Council’s evidence pack;
• The Adjudicator later refused Mrs X’s appeal and instructed full payment of £130. However, Mrs X believed she had paid the full amount so did not pay anything further;
• The Council therefore reregistered the debt with the Court to recover the outstanding amount and passed the matter to its enforcement agents;
• Mrs X filed a further late witness statement with the TEC on the grounds she paid the PCN in full, which the TEC refused;
• The Council subsequently pursued her for the outstanding amount and she has since paid this in full.
8. Because Mrs X has applied to the TEC to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case on the grounds she had already paid the PCN, we no longer have jurisdiction to consider any complaint about the same matter.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she has used her alternative remedy to the TEC.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman