The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council because it would have been reasonable for him to appeal. We cannot investigate his concerns the Council failed to follow the proper process as Mr X has put the matter to the court and we will not investigate his complaint about the conduct of the Council’s parking enforcement officer as there is insufficient evidence to support the complaint.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. He says a parking enforcement officer told him to park in the bay and was verbally aggressive while issuing 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. London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal but cannot investigate if the person has already appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) 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 made an application to a court to consider the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Background
The Council issued Mr X a PCN for a parking contravention in January 2021.
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.
Mr X informally challenged the PCN issued by the Council but the Council rejected his challenge. He did not make formal representations in response to the notice to owner so the Council escalated the PCN and registered it with the TEC under the process set out above.
Mr X made a witness statement to the TEC claiming the Council had failed to respond to his representations and the TEC referred the matter to London Tribunals to consider. London Tribunals sought evidence from Mr X to confirm he had made representations but Mr X could not provide it. The adjudicator therefore declined to consider the merits of the case.
My assessment
Had Mr X wished to challenge the PCN it would have been reasonable for him to make formal representations in response to the notice to owner and to appeal, in-time, to London Tribunals. The validity of the PCN is a matter for the appeals process and as part of this process the Tribunal could have considered Mr X’s assertion that he was told he could park in the bay.
We cannot investigate any complaint about the Council’s handling and escalation of the PCN as Mr X has challenged this with the TEC by making a witness statement.
While Mr X is concerned about the conduct of the parking enforcement officer he spoke to there is no evidence to support his assertion that they were verbally aggressive towards him. The Council says it has reviewed body camera footage but there is no recording of the alleged incident. Mr X has made a ‘subject access request’ for copies of the footage but says he is yet to receive this information. If he wishes to pursue the matter he should report his concerns to the Information Commissioner as they are better placed to decide whether the Council has complied with its obligations under the relevant regulations.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the substantive issue concerns the validity of a PCN and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman