Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s issue and escalation of a penalty charge notice. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to take the process back to an earlier stage. There is also insufficient evidence of fault b y the Council to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains he did not receive the Council’s correspondence about a penalty charge notice (PCN). He says he does not know what the PCN is for and was unable to submit an appeal against it. He says it is not fair that he has had to pay an increased fine which is causing him to struggle financially.

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 Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council has provided a copy of the original PCN and this is correctly addressed. I cannot therefore say, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr X did not receive it due to any fault by the Council. On this basis I cannot recommend or invite the Council to take action to remedy the injustice Mr X claims.
9. While we cannot provide a remedy for Mr X he may still apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration on the grounds he did not receive the original PCN. Mr X has provided evidence to show he has tried to make an application but his applications appear to pre-date the Council’s registration of the unpaid PCNs with the TEC. The case has clearly now been registered with the TEC so if Mr X wants to take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the penalty charge and reinstating his right of appeal, it would be reasonable for him to make a new application. The TEC does not have to show fault by the Council to accept an application and if it refuses Mr X’s application he may apply for a review of its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration. There is in any event not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman