Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a parking penalty. This is because Mrs X can appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and it is reasonable for her to do so.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained she could not pay parking charges due to faults with the Council’s pay and display machines and online payment methods, and the Council did not follow its complaints process. She said this caused her great stress due to her need to frequently use the car park. Mrs X would like the Council to ensure there are ways in which the public can pay for parking and cancel her parking charge.

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 law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
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.
5. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mrs X made representations against the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) the Council issued as she said there were problems with both the pay and display machine, and online payment methods.
9. The Council considered Mrs X’s representations but said it did not accept them because Mrs X should have sought alternative parking provision if she could not purchase parking.
10. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them. 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’.
11. If the motorist submits an informal challenge to a PCN and the Council decides not to accept them, it will write to the motorist and explain why. If the motorist accepts the Council’s reasons they may pay the PCN; if not, they may wait for a ‘notice to owner’. This provides a further opportunity for the owner of the vehicle to pay the charge or make ‘formal representations’ against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
12. 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 at Northampton County Court to register the debt, before instructing enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover it.
13. Mrs X could contact the TEC to make a late witness statement. The TEC 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.
14. In its complaint response, the Council told Mrs X there were two methods of payment available at the parking location. The Council said repairs were made to the pay and display machines whenever faults were reported.
15. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We do not look again at a decision to decide if it was wrong. We look at the process an organisation used to make its decision. If it followed the correct steps, we cannot question the outcome, even if the complainant disagrees.
16. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. It is for the Council to consider the evidence submitted, before forming a view. The Council has considered Mrs X’s circumstances and decided not to cancel the PCN based on the information available to it. There is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because Mrs X can appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman