Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that he did not receive a penalty charge notice because he has challenged the Council’s escalation of the case at court. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that it failed to issue him warnings and took too long to issue penalty charge notices because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to issue him a warning for a moving traffic contravention despite sending warnings to others. The Council issued Mr X three penalty charge notices (PCNs) for the contraventions but Mr X says this process took too long. He also complains he did not receive one of the PCNs at all, only finding out about it when the Council escalated it to the next stage of the process.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court but cannot investigate if the person has already been to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. 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

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Warnings

9. I understand Mr X did not receive the Council’s warnings but it has provided copies of its letters and they are correctly addressed. It is therefore unlikely we could say Mr X did not receive them due to any fault by the Council.

Escalation

10. Mr X paid two of the PCNs at the discounted rate but did not pay the third as he did not receive it. The Council escalated the case and registered the third PCN as a debt with the TEC and, following an application by Mr X to challenge the Council’s escalation, the TEC has ordered the Council to take the process back to the beginning. Because Mr X has challenged the Council’s escalation of the case at court any complaint about this issue falls outside our jurisdiction as set out at Paragraph 5.

Delay

11. While Mr X’s complaint about delay in issuing the PCNs is within our jurisdiction there is not enough evidence of fault for us to investigate further. The law says the Council should issue PCNs within 28 days of the contravention and the Council’s records show the PCNs were posted within this timeframe. There is not enough evidence to show, on balance, that the Council did not send the PCNs on the dates shown on the letters and we cannot hold the Council responsible for any delays by the postal service.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and Mr X has used the alternative remedy available to him to challenge the Council’s escalation of one of the PCNs.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman