The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice and how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaints about its handling of the matter. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have asked the court to consider his case and his complaint to us is made late.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council failed to engage with a complaint he made about a penalty charge notice (PCN) it issued to his wife, Mrs X, for a moving traffic offence, in 2022. Mr X complained the Council last responded in March 2023. Mr X wants the Council’s procedures to be examined, for the PCN to be cancelled and refunded and a financial payment in recognition of his costs/time and trouble.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) We 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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we cannot achieve the outcome someone seeks. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued Mrs X with an Order for Recovery for an outstanding PCN in September 2022. Parliament has provided a mechanism by which motorists can challenge the enforcement of PCNs at this stage by way of making a case to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) which is part of Northampton County Court. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have done this as this is the prescribed challenge method provided in law.
There was a court remedy available to Mrs X, and I consider it reasonable to expect her to have used it. As per paragraph two, we will not therefore investigate. That Mrs X chose to pay the PCN at this stage does not alter this view, as it was her choice to do this.
Mr X’s complaint is also made late as he has not complained to us within 12 months of him knowing about the problem ie from mid 2022 when the PCN was issued and March 2023 when Mr X says the Council last responded to him. Mr X complained to us in May 2023. Mr X has not said why his complaint is made late and it is reasonable to expect him to have complained to us sooner and within 12 months. I do not consider therefore that, notwithstanding what is said in paragraph eight, there are good reasons to investigate this late complaint now.
We are not another level of appeal against the PCN and are not empowered to cancel it or to ask the Council to refund Mrs X for the monies paid to clear it. As such, we could not, in any case, achieve part of the outcome Mr X seeks.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there was a court remedy available which could reasonably have been used and Mr X’s complaint to us is made late.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman