Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about two Penalty Charge Notices and the actions of the Council’s enforcement agents. The complaint is late with no good reason for us to now investigate. It is also unlikely an investigation by us could achieve a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained the Council’s enforcement agents wrongly seized his car to recover a parking debt. Mr X says the car was on private land. Mr X has also questioned if the proceeds from the sale of the car settled one or two Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs).

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. 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)
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)

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

What I found

Background

9. The Council issued Mr X with PCNs in February and October 2021. After it failed to receive payment, the Council passed the matter to its enforcement agents who subsequently seized Mr X’s car. The enforcement agents told Mr X in May 2022 his car had been sold. Since then, Mr X has contacted the enforcement agents and the Council. His concerns include whether the car should have been seized as it was on private land, and if the proceeds from the sale of the car settled both PCNs. I note the Council wrote to Mr X on 05 August 2024 and said the second PCN remained outstanding. In response to our enquiries the Council confirmed the sale of Mr X’s car did not settle the second PCN. This was because it only proceeded to the warrant stage of the enforcement process after the sale of Mr X’s vehicle.

Assessment

10. The Ombudsman normally expects people to complain to us within twelve months of them becoming aware of a problem. Mr X’s complaint is therefore late. The first PCN was issued over five years ago and the enforcement agents seized Mr X’s car over four years ago. We look at each complaint individually, and on its merits, considering the circumstances of each case. But we do not exercise discretion to accept a late complaint unless there are good reasons to do so.
11. Mr X has set out some information about his personal situation. However, the evidence I have seen shows he could complain to the enforcement agents as well as the Council. I am therefore satisfied it would have been reasonable for him to complain to the Ombudsman sooner. This applies to the PCNs, seizure of his car, and whether both PCNs had been settled. We will not therefore consider Mr X’s late complaint.
12. But even if we decided Mr X’s complaint was not late, or that we should treat some of it as on-time, we would not investigate. This is because the PCNs carried a right of appeal and we expect people to use that right. I see no reason to deviate from that position. More importantly, it is unlikely any investigation into the enforcement agents’ actions could achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X. This is because we could not say if Mr X’s car was wrongly seized. This is a matter that would require clarification by the courts. If Mr X wishes to pursue this point, he may wish to seek legal advice.
13. From the information we have it seems the second PCN remains outstanding - as the Council had said in its letter sent on 05 August 2024. While it is not clear what has happened since then, we will not consider this point. The PCN was issued over four and half years ago and carried a right of appeal. We could not say it should be cancelled and the Council has explained why it has not been settled.
14. While I understand Mr X’s frustrations about what has happened with the second PCN, it is now open to Mr X to contact the Council about payment or to wait to see what action the Council takes. Our involvement could not achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is late without good reason to investigate it now and it is unlikely that we could achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman