Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council in 2022. This is because Mr X had a right of appeal which it would have been reasonable for him to use and he may apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to reinstate this right.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council dismissed his evidence against a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued in 2022. He is unhappy the Council sent unofficial responses and that its officers did not conduct themselves properly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
5. 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)
6. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

The PCN process

8. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them. When a council issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal; appeals at this stage are known as ‘informal challenges’.
9. If the motorist submits an informal challenge to a PCN and the Council decides not to accept them, it will write to the motorist and explain why. If the motorist accepts the Council’s reasons they may pay the PCN; if not, they may wait for a ‘notice to owner’. This provides a further opportunity for the owner of the vehicle to pay the charge or make ‘formal representations’ against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to London Tribunals.
10. If the motorist does not pay or make formal representations the council will issue a charge certificate, increasing the amount payable by 50%. It may then apply to the TEC to register the debt, before instructing enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover it.

Mr X’s case

11. The Council issued Mr X a PCN for parking in a resident’s only space without displaying a valid permit. It affixed the PCN to his vehicle but he did not challenge or pay it, so it sent a notice to owner on 18 May 2022, a charge certificate on 24 June 2022 and registered the debt with the TEC on 8 August 2023. It then passed the case to its bailiffs to recover payment from Mr X on 25 September 2023.
12. Mr X contacted the Council in February 2024 after receiving contact from the Council’s bailiffs. He disputed the PCN and provided witness statements confirming he had access to a resident’s parking permit and displayed it when visiting the property. The Council responded with photos of his vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention which do not show any parking permit visible in the vehicle and confirming that on this basis it would not cancel the PCN.
13. While Mr X believes the Council has dismissed his evidence this is not the case. The Council has simply decided, as it is entitled to do, that its evidence showing the contravention occurred is stronger and that there was no procedural impropriety in the issue of the PCN or its handling of the case.
14. Ultimately, had Mr X wished to challenge the PCN it would have been reasonable for him to appeal following the issue of the notice to owner and under the statutory process set out above. The complaints process does not amount to a further opportunity to challenge a PCN and the Council’s refusal to deal with this point further, more than a year after the time for an appeal had passed, does not amount to fault.
15. If for any reason Mr X did not receive the notice to owner he may wish to contact the TEC for advice on applying to make a late witness statement. This process allows motorists to challenge a council’s escalation of a PCN and, if successful, the TEC may order the Council to take the PCN back to an earlier stage, removing the basis for any surcharges or bailiff fees and reinstating their right of appeal against the PCN. If the TEC refuses an application to make a late witness statement the motorist may apply for a review of its decision.
16. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal. If for any reason he did not receive the relevant documents in order to appeal, it would be reasonable for him to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman