The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about enforcement action relating to a penalty charge notice for a road user charging contravention. The complainant has already pursued a court remedy, with the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court, to try to resolve the matter.
The complaint
Mr X complains he did not receive enforcement documents relating to a penalty charge notice issued for a road user charging contravention, the Council delayed in responding to representations he submitted, and the Council gave incorrect advice about the enforcement process.
The debt has now been passed to the bailiffs. Mr X says this is causing him stress and anxiety which affects his physical health. He also says he has spent a significant amount of time and effort on trying to resolve the matter.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We can investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide: we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) And we cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) This is the case even if the court action did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916) The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is part of Northampton County Court. It considers applications from local authorities to pursue payment of unpaid PCNs and from motorists to challenge local authorities’ pursuit of unpaid PCNs.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X applied to the TEC to submit a late witness statement, as he had not received the original PCN or Order for Recovery, but it refused his application.
With reference to paragraphs five to seven above, this means the Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has already used the court remedy available to him.
If Mr X is unhappy with the TEC’s decision, he can ask it for details about how to seek a review.
Furthermore, as the Council has not retained recordings of telephone calls prior to November 2023, an investigation would not be able to independently establish if officers gave Mr X incorrect advice about the enforcement process. So, the restriction detailed in paragraph four would also apply to that part of the complaint.
Final decision
We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has already taken court action about the matter. In addition, we could not add to the Council’s previous investigation into the advice given by officers.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman