Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the enforcement of a traffic penalty charge notice as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council continued to enforce a traffic penalty charge notice (PCN) despite him saying the outcome of his appeal to the independent tribunal was ambiguous and having submitted a statutory declaration to the court. Mr X says this resulted in his vehicle being immobilised by enforcement agents which caused him to miss an important appointment. Mr X says he has been caused significant stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X appealed a traffic PCN to London Tribunals (LT). The appeal decision stated LT had refused Mr X’s appeal but in the same decision it directed the Council to cancel the PCN. Mr X says he took no further action following this as he considered he had won his appeal.
6. The Council said it received notification from LT that the appeal had been refused. It explained that the contradictory information in the decision would not have been noticed at the time due to how it records appeal outcomes. As Mr X did not pay the PCN, it sent him further statutory notices: a charge certificate and an order for recovery. The Council said it heard nothing from Mr X in response, and it was only when its enforcement agents immobilised his car, that Mr X contacted the Council. The Council said it had no notification of the statutory declaration Mr X had made to the court at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). Following Mr X’s subsequent complaints to it, the Council confirmed with LT that the appeal had been refused and corrected the error in the decision.
7. We will not investigate as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council in continuing to enforce the PCN. While there was some ambiguity in the appeal notice, the Council acted on the notification it received that the appeal had been refused. Had Mr X himself sought clarification about the decision or responded to the further notices the Council sent to him, the involvement of enforcement agents may well have been avoided.
8. I recognise Mr X is unhappy that the Council proceeded when he had submitted a statutory declaration to the TEC, but the Council said it had no knowledge of this. It is unlikely therefore that we will find fault in this regard.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman