Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). It was reasonable to expect the complainant to ask the Traffic Enforcement Centre to restore their right to appeal and then appeal to a tribunal. The Council can decide what evidence it will consider when it looks at a PCN challenge. We can only check whether the Council followed the correct process and considered the evidence. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s process to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X says her complaint is about how the Council handled her Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) case and its failure to consider exceptional circumstances and vulnerability, not the validity of the PCN.

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. 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.
5. 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))
6. 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)
7. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information from the complainant and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Assessment

9. Miss X says the Council failed to consider her vulnerability, including her pregnancy and financial circumstances. However, these are matters which sit within the statutory process for challenging a PCN, rather than a freestanding complaint.
10. The Council placed a temporary hold on enforcement and advised Miss X that the appropriate route to challenge the case was to submit an out of time witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). It also signposted her to debt advice services and explained that vulnerability does not override the statutory process. I have not seen evidence this advice was flawed.
11. The TEC is part of the court process and can consider whether there is reason to reset the PCN process to an earlier stage. If accepted, this would allow Miss X to make representations and raise any mitigating circumstances, including her vulnerability. It is reasonable to expect her to use this process.
12. The Ombudsman cannot decide what evidence a council should accept when it considers a PCN challenge. We can only check whether the Council considered the information and followed the correct procedure. Based on the information available, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter.
13. As Miss X has a suitable alternative remedy through TEC and there is insufficient evidence of fault, we will not investigate the complaint. It is also not a good use of public resources to consider the Council’s complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint because it was reasonable to expect the complainant to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to regain their appeal rights and may then appeal if the TEC agrees. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman