The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Ms Y to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre and then the London Tribunals.
The complaint
Ms Y complained the Council mishandled her attempt to appeal a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to the London Tribunals when she mistakenly sent the appeal to the Council. She also complained that after she had paid the penalty, the Council then sent her further correspondence asking for payment.
The penalty increased and Ms Y paid the penalty at a higher rate after she was contacted by bailiffs under duress and feels the Council has denied her a fair chance to have her penalty reviewed.
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) 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) London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
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 Ms Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms Y can apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) based at Northampton County Court to make a late statutory declaration, explaining why she was previously unable to appeal and asking the court to reinstate her right to appeal against the PCN. The TEC has the power to do this if it wishes, despite payment as Ms Y paid under duress from bailiffs.
If the TEC accepts Ms Y’s application it can take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the PCN and reinstating Ms Y’s right of appeal against it to the London Tribunals. Ms Y can then decide if she wishes to appeal the PCN or pay the penalty at a lower amount.
This is often free in the initial stages and reasonable adjustments can be made where necessary for access to the service.
Consequently, as Ms Y has not provided any other reason why she cannot, it is reasonable to expect Ms Y to use this right to appeal. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
Ms Y has also complained that after paying the penalty, the Council still sent her a further letter asking her to pay the penalty. The Council’s complaint response acknowledged the error, which was due to use of an automated system. The Council has agreed to review its procedures to see if there is a method to prevent recurrence of the issue.
This has caused Ms Y some upset, but the remedy the Council has already provided, in reviewing its processes and acknowledging the issue is a proportionate and appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by its fault. Consequently, we are satisfied with the action already taken by the Council. We will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Ms Y to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre and then the London Tribunals.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman