Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the handling of a Penalty Charge Notice because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement. Ms Y has also appealed to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about the Council’s handling of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and its decision to pass the debt to an enforcement agent. She says the enforcement agent has not considered her vulnerability and are not acting appropriately.

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 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))
3. We cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court or use 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 go to court or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(6)(a) and (c), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the rest of England. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), part of the county court, considers applications to set the PCN process back where there has been procedural fault.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms Y and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms Y complained to the Council about the handling of a PCN and the Council’s decision to pass the debt to an enforcement agent. Ms Y also appealed the PCN to the TEC, however this was refused. As Ms Y used her right of appeal, we cannot investigate this part of the complaint because the law prevents us from doing so.
8. Ms Y also complained about the conduct of the enforcement agent. She says it did not consider her vulnerabilities. The Council placed Ms Y’s account on hold whilst the TEC considered her appeal. When the appeal was refused, the Council could have redirected the enforcement agent to continue pursuing the debt. However, after becoming aware of Ms Y’s vulnerabilities, it recalled the case from the enforcement agent. The Council invited Ms Y to liaise directly with it in agreeing a payment plan for the remaining balance of the PCN, which is says it does not normally do.
9. I am satisfied the Council considered Ms Y’s vulnerabilities and responded appropriately to this. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions therefore we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
10. Ms Y has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement. Ms Y has also appealed to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman