The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. This is because it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals. If Mr X believes the Council has failed to follow the appeals process it would be reasonable for him to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to make a late witness statement.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. He says the Council failed to respond to his contact about the PCN.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
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 Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
The process There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them. When a council issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal; appeals at this stage are known as ‘informal challenges’.
If the motorist submits an informal challenge to a PCN and the Council decides not to accept them, it will write to the motorist and explain why. If the motorist accepts the Council’s reasons they may pay the PCN; if not, they may wait for a ‘notice to owner’. This provides a further opportunity for the owner of the vehicle to pay the charge or make ‘formal representations’ against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to London Tribunals.
If the motorist does not pay or make formal representations the council will issue a charge certificate, increasing the amount payable by 50%. It may then apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court to register the debt, before instructing enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover it.
My assessment
If Mr X disputed the PCN it would have been reasonable for him to appeal under the process set out above.
Mr X suggests he did try to challenge the PCN but that the Council failed to respond to his challenge. If this is the case it would be reasonable for Mr X apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement. If the TEC accepts Mr X’s application it may take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount he owes and reinstating his right of appeal against the PCN. If the TEC refuses Mr X’s application he may apply for a review of its decision.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. Mr X had a right of appeal against the PCN which it would have been reasonable for him to use and he may apply to the TEC to reinstate that right.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman