Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices and the involvement of bailiffs. This is because there were appeal rights the complainant has or could have used.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) and says the Council did not respond and would not accept he had appealed on time. Mr X also complains the Council instructed bailiffs who clamped his car.

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. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. 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)
5. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes information about the PCNs and our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued Mr X with PCNs for driving in a bus lane. Mr X says he was entitled to drive in the bus lane because he was driving a taxi. The Council explained the exemption applies to Hackney Carriage taxis which Mr X does not drive.
8. The Council issued PCN (1). The Council says Mr X did not get in touch until after it had instructed bailiffs. Mr X paid the bailiffs after they clamped his car. I will not investigate this PCN because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal or applied to the court for a witness statement if he thought the Council had not replied correctly to an appeal. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have done this because it is the appropriate way to challenge a PCN. In addition, while it is correct the bailiffs clamped Mr X’s taxi, the restriction on taking control of essential work goods only applies up to a value of £1350; Mr X’s car has an estimated value of between £5000 and £16000 so the bailiffs could clamp the car.
9. The Council issued PCN (2). The Council rejected Mr X’s challenge and issued a Notice of Rejection which included appeal rights to the tribunal. Mr X says he was abroad for a couple of months and may have missed some deadlines. Mr X has applied to the court for a witness statement and is waiting for a decision. I will not investigate this complaint because Mr X has used the statutory process (the court process) which means we cannot intervene.
10. The Council issued PCN (3) which Mr X paid at the discounted rate. I will not investigate this PCN because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal.
11. The Council issued a fourth PCN in August which is still outstanding. I will not investigate this complaint because Mr X can follow the statutory process and appeal to the tribunal.
12. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the PCNs but there is a statutory process, including the tribunal and applications to court for a witness statement. Further, the Council explained why it issued the PCNs and Mr X had chances to pay or appeal before the involvement of bailiffs and increased fees.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X has or could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman