Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Ms X says she did not receive the original penalty charge notice and it would therefore be reasonable for her to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to take the process back to an earlier stage.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to take account of her vulnerability when pursuing payment for a penalty charge notice (PCN). She says she did not receive the original PCN and struggles with anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts. She wants the Council to cancel the PCN.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I acknowledge Ms X’s claimed vulnerability but this does not mean the Council is unable to pursue her for payment of the PCN, or that it must cancel it. The Council has clearly considered Ms X’s circumstances but decided not to cancel the PCN and this was a decision it was entitled to make. It has made its enforcement agents aware of the issues Ms X has raised and explained they have a dedicated welfare team to support and manage cases such as hers.
8. There is also no suggestion of fault in the issue or escalation of the PCN itself; it is instead the case that Ms X says she did not receive the original PCN or further notices due to circumstances outside her control. Because there is no evidence of fault by the Council, we cannot say it must cancel the PCN or stop enforcement action.
9. The Council has explained Ms X may apply to the TEC to challenge its escalation of the case and I have seen nothing to suggest it would be unreasonable for her to do so. It is also the process most likely to achieve a remedy for Ms X as she does not have to show fault by the Council. The TEC will make its own decision on the application and will take into account Ms X’s statement in deciding whether to accept it.
10. If the TEC accepts Ms X’s application it may order the Council to take the process back to an earlier stage, reinstating her right of appeal and reducing the amount of the penalty charge. This would also remove the basis for any enforcement agent fees. If the TEC refuses Ms X’s application she may apply for a review of its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it would be reasonable for Ms X to apply to the TEC to take the process back to an earlier stage.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman