The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council issued a penalty charge notice to his old address. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council sent information about a penalty charge notice (PCN) to his previous address. Mr X was unaware the Council had issued a PCN until a year later when the Council passed the case to its enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover payment.
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. 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 been 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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint sets out his right to make a late witness statement to challenge its escalation of the PCN with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), part of Northampton County Court, and it would be reasonable for Mr X to use this process here.
If Mr X’s application is successful the TEC may order the Council to return the process to an earlier stage, reinstating his right of appeal and reducing the amount of the penalty charge. Because Mr X has now paid the PCN we would expect the Council to refund the additional charges added to the debt recovered, if his application is successful.
I have decided not to exercise our discretion to investigate the complaint because the witness statement process is more likely to provide a favourable outcome for Mr X. This is because Mr X confirms he drove into Birmingham’s clean air zone while in the process of moving house and the Council issued the PCN to the address provided by the DVLA, which was his old address. Mr X confirms he applied to change his address at the time but this process is not immediate and there is no requirement for the Council to re-check address details at every stage. It is therefore unlikely we could say the Council’s issue of correspondence to his old address, which was the address provided by the DVLA when it issued the PCN, amounted to fault.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman