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 Mr X to use his right of appeal.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. He disputes the PCN and wants the Council to cancel it. He also wants the Council to take action against others who do not comply with parking restrictions in the area.
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 Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside 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 Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
The statutory appeals 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 the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT).
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 had disputed the PCN it would have been reasonable for him to appeal under the process set out above. While he made an informal challenge, which the Council refused, he did not make formal representations in response to the notice to owner and did not appeal to the TPT. We consider the TPT is better placed to deal with disputes concerning the validity of a PCN and I have seen nothing to suggest it would not have been reasonable for Mr X to use the appeals process available to him.
I note however that Mr X claims the Council did not follow the proper procedure in dealing with the PCN and if he believes this affected his right of appeal he may be able to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement. Further information about this is available online. If the TEC accepts Mr X’s application it may order the Council to take the process back to an earlier stage, reinstating his right of appeal and reducing the amount of the PCN.
Mr X also complains the Council has failed to take action to stop motorists from failing to comply with parking restrictions on the road but we will not investigate this point further. This is because the injustice he claims stems from the PCN rather than whether the Council is taking action to deal with contraventions by other motorists.
The law places no duty on councils to issue PCNs to every vehicle which fails to comply with parking restrictions but if Mr X believed the point was relevant to his case he may have argued it as part of his appeal.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman