The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that Miss X had to pay an increased fee for a penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect Miss X to have asked the Traffic Enforcement Centre to consider her case.
The complaint
Miss X complains she had to pay an increased fee for a penalty charge notice (PCN) for a parking contravention despite her having appealed against it to the Council. Miss X seeks a refund and compensation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council advised Miss X, in its letter to her of 26 January 2021, about how she could challenge the enforcement of the PCN. It advised her to make a witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), which is part of the Northampton County Court. Miss X did not do this and so the case progressed and was eventually passed to the Council’s enforcement agents. This meant Miss X had to pay an increased amount to clear the PCN.
The procedure put in place by Parliament allows motorists to contact the TEC when something has gone wrong in the procedure for eg if certain notices weren’t received or appeals were not considered. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to have followed this procedure and so as per paragraph two, we will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because Miss X could have reasonably followed the procedure set out in law to challenge the enforcement of the PCN.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman