Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notices for an alleged parking or traffic contravention. The Council has considered X’s personal circumstances, and we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken in response to the complaint. In any case it would be reasonable to have expected X to use the statutory representations and appeals procedure.

The complaint

1. X says the Council did not properly consider their representations about numerous Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) for an alleged traffic contravention.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has 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 use this right. If the person has already appealed we have no power to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), 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 from the complainant and the Council and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. X said the Council had failed to properly take account of their personal circumstances and had handled their PCN’s unfairly. They wanted the Council to either significantly reduce their outstanding fines or cancel them altogether.
8. The Council replied to X’s complaint. It said it had taken substantive actions in recognition of their circumstances, including:
• Pausing any debt enforcement for different time periods.
• Reducing the costs of the outstanding PCN’s it still had in its immediate control.
• Reducing the costs of PCN’s with enforcement agents.
9. I will not investigate this complaint. Where a person is issued with a PCN, it is reasonable to expect them to use the statutory appeals procedure I have highlighted at paragraph four. Or if they did not receive a notice to owner, for any reason, to file a late witness statement at the TEC.
10. In any case I am satisfied the Council considered X’s circumstances where it offered to reduce the amount of penalty they owed.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken. Additionally, it would be reasonable for the complainant to have used the representations and appeals procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman