The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement agent visiting Mr X’s home to recover charges for a moving traffic offence Mr X says he did not know about. The Council is not at fault for enforcing the penalty charge notice, and it would be reasonable for Mr X to make a statutory declaration in court if he wishes to challenge the penalty or enforcement action.
The complaint
Mr X says the Council sent an agent to his home to enforce payment under a moving traffic penalty charge he says he knew nothing about. He says the agent forced his way into the home, did not wear a face mask despite there being medically vulnerable people there, and threatened to clamp the car despite it being a Motability vehicle.
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 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) 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.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council’s response to the complaint, based on it seeing the enforcement agent’s bodycam footage says Mr X’s mother invited him to go in, no-one asked the agent to wear a face mask, and wearing a mask was not mandatory at the time of the visit. The Council accepted the agent had, when leaving, said he would clamp the vehicle but realised his mistake when he returned to his own car, so the Council apologised. The Council has also confirmed its records show the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and other statutory notices which followed as Mr X did not pay were all sent to the correct address it obtained from the DVLA. The address the Council had is the same as the address Mr X gave us with his complaint. There is therefore no evidence of the Council being at fault here and it is not likely we could add anything by investigating.
However, it is also the case Mr X can make a statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre, part of the county court, about the matter and the Council has told him how. It would therefore be reasonable for Mr X to challenge the issue of the PCN by applying to court first.
If the court accepts his declaration and resets the PCN process it would restore Mr X’s right to appeal against the PCN at London Tribunals. It would be reasonable for Mr X to use this right, but the Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint regardless of the outcome of any court application Mr X makes.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and it would be reasonable for him to apply to the county court then appeal to London Tribunals if the court restores his appeal right.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman