Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about Mr X’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because Mr X has already made representations to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. We will not investigate the actions of Enforcement Agents as there is not significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council issued him a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) but sent the notice to an address which he had never lived at, meaning he was unaware of the PCN or that it had been passed to Enforcement Agents.
2. Mr X further complained that once the Enforcement Agents updated their records with his correct address, they did not get permission from the court and attended his home without serving him a seven-day notice.
3. Mr X said the attendance of Enforcement Agents had a negative effect on his mental and physical health and he suffered financial loss as he had to install extra security measures at his home.
4. Mr X wanted the Council to apologise, provide financial compensation, and reimburse him the money he spent on security measures.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council issued a PCN to Mr X in August 2024, the notice was sent to the address listed for the vehicle by the DVLA. Mr X says this address was incorrect and as a result he did not receive the PCN.
10. The Council did not receive payment for the PCN, so it registered the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) and passed the case to Enforcement Agents, who initially attended the incorrect address for Mr X.
11. Mr X says that when his correct address had been confirmed by the Enforcement Agents, they attended his address without authority from the courts or serving him a seven-day notice, which caused him distress.
12. The Council can issue a charge certificate which increases the fine by 50% if:

• the fine is not paid;
• the motorist does not appeal against the fine; or
• an appeal is not successful.

13. If the fine is still not paid, the authority can register the debt with the TEC at Northampton County Court. It can then ask enforcement agents (bailiffs) to collect payment for the fine and bailiff’s costs.
14. The motorist can apply to the TEC to ask them to cancel the registration of the debt. They do this by filling in a witness statement or statutory declaration.
15. If the motorist is successful, the TEC might order the authority to go back to an earlier stage which will reduce the fine and they will not have to pay the bailiff’s costs. It might also give them back their right to appeal.
16. If the motorist is too late to make a witness statement, they might be able to ask the TEC to look at their application ‘out of time’.
17. Mr X made representations to the TEC on the basis that he did not receive the Council’s earlier correspondence. We have no power to investigate a complaint where a person has already taken the matter to court. We cannot investigate
    Mr X’s complaint about the Council using the wrong address.
18. Mr X also complained the Enforcement Agents did not serve him prior notice to their attendance or have the appropriate authority from the court. Any injustice resulting from these matters is not significant enough to justify our involvement. But for any fault in this respect, enforcement still would have taken place. Mr X’s added security is not injustice as a direct result of any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has already made representations to the Traffic Enforcement Centre, and the injustice claimed is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman