Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to reinstate his right of appeal.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consider his representations against a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued after his vehicle had been stolen. He believes the Council should have cancelled the PCN and says he did not receive its ‘notice of rejection’ so he could not appeal. The Council then registered the unpaid PCN with the court and instructed enforcement agents (bailiffs) to enforce payment.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused him financial loss, distress and inconvenience. He has now pai £515 to settle the PCN and bailiff fees and want the Council to refund his payment and pay him compensation.
3. Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint about the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully.
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. 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)
7. 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.
8. The law says 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
9. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
11. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

12. Mr X’s injustice stems mainly from the issue of the PCN and the fact he did not receive the Council’s response to his representations. It is not for us to determine the validity of the PCN- this is a matter for the appeals process - and there is a process Mr X can follow to reinstate his right of appeal.
13. Because Mr X made representations but did not receive a response, he may apply to the TEC to make a witness statement or statutory declaration ‘out of time’. If the TEC accepts his application it would order the Council to take the process back to an earlier stage, removing the additional charges added to the PCN and reinstating Mr X’s right of appeal against it. If the TEC refuses Mr X’s application he may apply for a review of its decision.
14. I have seen nothing to show it would be unreasonable for Mr X to use this process and I will not therefore exercise my discretion to investigate his complaint.
15. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint.  But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about.  We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman