The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the enforcement of a Penalty Charge Notice. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to seek to regain his appeal rights, and then to appeal to a tribunal. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his representations about the matter. It is not a good use of resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures when we decide not to deal with the substantive issue.
The complaint
Mr X says the Council failed to follow the correct procedure for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), which prevented him from paying the discounted fee. Mr X says the matter has wrongly progressed through the enforcement procedure.
Mr X also complains the Council did not properly consider his complaint about the matter and did not apply its discretionary powers correctly.
Mr X says this caused distress.
Mr X wants the Council to properly consider his complaint, allow him to pay the PCN at the discounted rate and review its processes.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
We cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court or use 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 go to court or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(6)(a) and (c), as amended) London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the rest of England. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), part of the county court, considers applications to set the PCN process back where there has been procedural fault.
We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
We consider our powers on what we could achieve as part of our consideration of whether an alternative remedy exists and whether it is reasonable for a person to use it.
It is reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the TEC because we cannot instruct the Council to return the PCN to the point where a discounted fee would apply. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of his complaint.
We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his representations about the PCN. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures when we decide not to deal with the substantive issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to regain his appeal rights and then appeal if the TEC agrees. Additionally, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures when we decide not to deal with the substantive issue.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman