Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the enforcement of a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Miss B to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to set the PCN process back.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains she did not receive a response to her representations challenging a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the Authority for an alleged road charging contravention. Miss B says she paid the required charge at the time and she made an honest mistake by typing one digit of her car registration incorrectly. Miss B would like the Authority to cancel this PCN, which she cannot afford to pay.

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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Miss B and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss B may put in a statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre on the ground she put in representations after receiving a Notice to Owner and did not receive a rejection notice. This is the process to follow if a motorist considers there has been procedural fault by an authority. I find it is reasonable for Miss B to use this process.
7. This would restore Miss B’s right of appeal to London Tribunals to challenge this PCN.
8. Miss B would not be able to appeal to London Tribunals solely on the basis of mitigating circumstances. This is not a valid ground of appeal for this type of PCN.
9. Miss B may complain to us if she considers the Authority has not given proper consideration to her mitigating circumstances. But, ultimately it is for the Authority to decide whether to use its discretion to cancel a PCN because of mitigating circumstances. We would only consider whether the Authority has given proper consideration to a motorist’s representations.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because it is reasonable for Miss B to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to set the process back.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman