The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. Mr X used his right to submit a Witness Statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre, and we have no power to change the court’s decision. The Council has provided a suitable remedy for a related administrative error.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council sent a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to the wrong address, which meant he was not aware of it until enforcement action began. He says the Council has not reduced the amount payable after he submitted a Witness Statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). He says the matter has caused him and his family distress, and caused him a financial detriment. He wants the Council to reduce the amount payable, to the original PCN amount.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal 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) We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to us about a PCN the Council issued to him for a moving traffic offence. Mr X says the PCN was sent to his previous address, so he did not receive it until enforcement action had begun. The TEC, part of Northampton County Court, allows people to submit a Witness Statement in such cases. If accepted, this effectively reverts the PCN to an earlier stage to provide the person the opportunity to either pay or appeal.
Mr X submitted a Witness Statement to the TEC. While the TEC initially told Mr X it had accepted his application, he says it later told him this had been an error. The TEC refused Mr X’s application. This meant he owed the Council £189.
We have no power to investigate the substantive part of Mr X’s complaint. We cannot change the court’s decision. It was for the court, not the Ombudsman or the Council, to consider Mr X’s assertion he had not paid the PCN earlier due to not having received it.
The Council accepted via its complaints procedure that it had wrongly removed the hold on enforcement action before the TEC had notified Mr X of its decision. This meant Mr X unexpectedly had enforcement agents visit his property at a time when he did not yet know the outcome of his application to the TEC. He says this caused him distress, and a visit fee of £235 was added to the debt. The Council apologised and cancelled the visit fee.
The Council has already provided a suitable remedy to acknowledge the impact of its administrative error. I am satisfied with the action the Council has already taken, and we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he used his right to submit a Witness Statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre, and the Council has already provided a suitable remedy for its error in removing the hold on enforcement action too soon.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman