The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to carry out enforcement action, after it issued him with a penalty charge notice. Mr X had a right of appeal about this, and it would have been reasonable to expect him to use this.
The complaint
Mr X complained after the Council issued him with a penalty charge notice (PCN) He said specifically: The Council should re consider the PCN taking his financial hardship into account, and; It should introduce a more compassionate and flexible system for repayment of missed penalties.
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 has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) 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.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In June 2024, Mr X wrote to the Council about a PCN it had issued for a contravention that had occurred in October 2023. The Council replied and told Mr X it had previously written to him about the PCN and had also given him the opportunity to make representations.
The Council said Mr X had not responded to either of these things. The Council also advised Mr X he may be able to submit a witness statement to the TEC and ask it to consider his case.
Mr X said the Council should have considered his specific financial circumstances before it pursued him for payment of a missed PCN payment. These are matters relating to mitigation, which could have been considered by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, and it would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to use this right of appeal here.
Furthermore, if Mr X believes he is not liable for any PCN or wishes to challenge the Council’s decisions about PCN, he can apply to the TEC and make a late witness statement. If the TEC accept his application, it may order the Council to take the process back to an earlier stage and reinstate his right of appeal.
In any case we cannot direct the Council to cancel a PCN.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had a right of appeal, and it would have been reasonable to expect him to use it.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman