The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention. The complainant had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice and has asked a court to restore that right.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss B, complained because the Council issued a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention and is using bailiffs to collect the penalty charge from her.
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) The law also says we cannot investigate a complaint when someone has sought a remedy in court; we have no discretion in this. This applies even if the court could not provide a remedy for all the claimed injustice. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.
Background
The Council enforces parking restrictions and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the Traffic Management Act 2004 and associated Regulations.
Councils and motorists must follow these procedures.
Miss B had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) which is a statutory tribunal. An appeal to the TPT is free and relatively easy to use. It is also the way in which Parliament expects people to challenge a penalty charge notice. For these reasons, the restriction I describe in paragraph 3 generally applies.
Summary of events The Council issued the penalty charge notice because it believed Miss B had parked without displaying a valid permit.
The Council says it received no payment or representations so continued to take recovery action. It eventually registered the unpaid penalty charge as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. This allowed the Council to use bailiffs to recover the penalty charge and any additional fees from Miss B.
Miss B then contacted the Council which advised her to make a witness statement to the TEC. Miss B did this and the TEC ordered the Council to issue a new notice to owner. This did not cancel the penalty charge notice but allowed Miss B to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If the Council rejected these, Miss B could appeal to the TPT.
Miss B did not pay or appeal so the Council again registered the unpaid penalty charge as a debt with the TEC. Miss B made a second witness statement which the TEC rejected. If she disagreed with the TEC’s decision, she could have asked a District Judge at her local county court to review it.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because she had a right of appeal to a tribunal and has asked a court to restore that right.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman