Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have applied to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to return the process to an earlier stage. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) that he says was issued against him incorrectly. He says the Council issued a Charge Certificate despite him being under the impression that it was still dealing with his complaint, meaning he lost his right of appeal to a tribunal. He also says the Council has failed to respond to his Subject Access Request (SAR).

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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. 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.
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X sent representations to the Council disputing its reasons for issuing him with a PCN. The Council rejected Mr X’s representations.
9. Mr X complained to the Council about how it handled his representations. The Council told Mr X it could not deal with a complaint about this matter and signposted him to the appeals process.
10. Mr X contacted a councillor about the matter. The Council issued a Notice of Rejection on the same day. Mr X did not pay the charge, and the Council issued a Charge Certificate.
11. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s handling of his complaint deprived him of his right of appeal to London Tribunals. The Council made it clear to Mr X that it would not consider his complaint and signposted him to the appeals process. Whilst Mr X chose to continue to correspond with a councillor this did not prevent him from pursuing the matter through the correct process.
12. If Mr X still disputed the PCN once the Charge Certificate had been issued, he could have chosen not to pay and filed a witness statement once the Order for Recovery was issued. It was reasonable for him to use this right of appeal.
13. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his SAR. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to deal with complaints about such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have applied to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to return the process to an earlier stage. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman