Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because Mr X has applied to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to take the process back to an earlier stage and made a claim against the Council at court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not properly respond to his appeal against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and ignored key parts of his complaints about the PCN. He says the Council failed to take account of his physical and mental health conditions and wrongly passed the case to enforcement agents to recover payment from him.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court but cannot investigate if the person has already been to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council issued Mr X a PCN in June 2024. Mr X did not pay the PCN or make representations against it, so the Council escalated the case and issued a charge certificate in August 2024.
7. Mr X then wrote to the Council challenging the PCN on the grounds its signs were not visible; he noted his disabilities and poor mental health. The Council noted his correspondence but said Mr X was too late to make a representation against the PCN. However, it agreed to extend the discounted payment period for a further 14 days so Mr X could pay at a lower rate.
8. Mr X did not pay and later made a late application to the TEC to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case. The TEC refused the application and Mr X paid the PCN.
9. Because Mr X challenged the Council’s escalation of the case with the TEC we cannot consider any complaint about the same matter. We also cannot look at the issue of the PCN itself or the Council’s actions in pursuing Mr X for payment. This is because Mr X made a claim against the Council at court. The restriction set out at Paragraph 3 therefore applies.
10. The Council recognised parts of its complaint handling fell below its expected standards and partially upheld this part of Mr X’s 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

11. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has taken court against the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman