Summary: We cannot investigate the Council’s escalation of an unpaid penalty charge notice to its enforcement agents as Ms X has asked the court to consider this matter and it is therefore no longer within our remit. It is unlikely we will find fault in the Council’s handling of Ms X’s subsequent complaint, and we will not therefore investigate that as a separate matter.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of a bus lane penalty charge notice (PCN). Ms X says the PCN notices were sent to her old address, and she only became aware of the debt when the Council’s enforcement agents contacted her. Ms X says she paid the PCN under duress the following day when the enforcement agents clamped her car. Ms X is also unhappy that the Council did not subsequently exercise discretion to cancel the enforcement action when she complained to it, despite her explaining she had received only 24 hours’ notice of the enforcement agent involvement and about her difficult personal circumstances. Ms X says this has caused her financial hardship and acute distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
3. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The law which governs the enforcement of PCNs allows a motorist to ask the court at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) to decide how a case should proceed when that motorist was not aware of a PCN prior to enforcement agent involvement. Ms X has used her right to ask the court to consider her case and as per paragraph two, we cannot investigate.
8. After paying the PCN, Ms X asked the Council to exercise its discretion to cancel the enforcement action as she said she only had 24 hours’ notice of the enforcement agent involvement and as she is a single parent with limited resources. We will not investigate as it is unlikely we will find fault. The Council took account of these issues but did not consider Ms X to be a vulnerable debtor and as such, that the enforcement action was legitimate. The Council said it, nor its enforcement agents were responsible for postal delays or the short notice of impending action and so there were not grounds to waive or reduce the debt. We could only be critical of this decision if there was fault in how it was made. While Ms X is unhappy with it, her complaint does not evidence such fault.
9. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We cannot investigate whether Ms X has a case against enforcement agent involvement. Ms X has asked the court to consider this, and the matter is therefore no longer within our remit. It is unlikely we will find fault in how the Council subsequently considered its discretion to cancel the enforcement action and so we will not investigate this aspect of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman