Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the enforcement of several Penalty Charge Notices. This is because Mr X used his right to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. This places the matter outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mr X received three Penalty Charge Notices from the Authority for driving in the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) without paying the charge. The Authority later instructed enforcement agents to recover the debt.
2. Mr X complains the Authority’s enforcement agents wrongly progressed with enforcement by clamping his car despite sending them evidence he had filed an out-of-time statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). He says this meant, by law, the enforcement agents should have placed enforcement on hold until the TEC made its decision. Mr X complains the enforcement agents failed to follow the statutory process.
3. Mr X says the Authority refused to investigate the complaint. Also, he says the Authority failed to consider his vulnerability and the significant financial hardship he and his family would face through enforcing the debts.
4. Mr X complains the Authority’s enforcement agents failed to respond to his subject access request.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
6. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
7. 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.
8. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

9. 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

10. I considered information from the complainant and the Authority, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Assessment

11. When the Authority issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal. If the motorist does not pay or make formal representations, the Authority will issue a charge certificate and may then apply to the TEC to register the debt. The Authority may then instruct enforcement agents to recover the debt.
12. Where a motorist makes representations against a PCN but does not receive a response, they may apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement / statutory declaration. The TEC has the power to order the issuing authority to take the process back to an earlier stage, reinstating the right of appeal against the PCN and reducing the amount owed.
13. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because Mr X sent out of time statutory declarations to the TEC about the Authority’s decision to issue the three PCNs. This means the exclusion in paragraph six applies and we have no powers to consider his complaint. While I acknowledge the TEC has refused two of Mr X’s applications so far, this does not bring the complaint back into our jurisdiction. The Authority is entitled to resume debt recovery, which was previously on hold.
14. Regarding Mr X’s complaint about consideration of his vulnerability, based on the evidence I have seen, the enforcement agents refused Mr X’s offer to repay the debts at £1 per month. The enforcement agents were not required to accept the repayment plan. Separately, the Authority considered Mr X’s circumstances and offered Mr X the chance to pay each PCN at the discounted rate of £90 per PCN. It said Mr X had until 30 July to make the payment. The Authority confirmed it had paused enforcement until this deadline. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Authority to justify investigating. Also, further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more than the Authority’s offer. And, Mr X seeks outcomes the Ombudsman cannot achieve (including cessation of enforcement activity, acceptance of his payment plan and cancelling any warrants). We could not direct the Authority to do any of these things. So, for these reasons, we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
15. So far as Mr X complains about the enforcement agent’s failure to respond to his subject access request about the PCNs, we will not investigate. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider this complaint about data protection.
16. It is not a proportionate use of our limited resources to investigate the Authority’s complaint handling alone when we are not considering the substantive matters. Any separable injustice is not significant enough to justify our further involvement. So, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We cannot investigate this complaint about the enforcement of several Penalty Charge Notices. This is because Mr X used his right to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. This places the matter outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman