Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the handling of a penalty charge notice. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to take the process back to an earlier stage.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to follow the correct procedure for a penalty charge notice (PCN) and denied him the opportunity to pay the PCN at the discounted rate. He says he saw the Council’s civil enforcement officer (parking warden) putting the PCN on his vehicle but when he returned to it, the PCN was not there. He did not therefore have any information about the PCN and could not pay it within the discounted period. The Council has now escalated the case and is preparing to register the unpaid PCN with the court.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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 from the complainant and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate this complaint because it is reasonable to expect the complainant to apply to the TEC to take the process back to an earlier stage. He should wait for the Council to register the PCN with the TEC and use the forms provided with the ‘order for recovery’ to make a witness statement/statutory declaration on the grounds he did not receive the PCN.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman