Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that Mr X did not receive notifications about a penalty charge notice. This is because Mr X took his case to court and so it is no longer within our remit. What happens next with Mr X’s PCN is a matter for the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, should Mr X decide not to pay it.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to send him notifications relating to parking penalty charge notices (PCNs) which meant he was unable to appeal them. Mr X says the Council still has not provided proof of these notifications having been sent and has falsified records of when he applied to renew his parking permit. Mr X is unhappy as he feels the Council has not taken account of his difficult personal circumstances in the way it has dealt with his matter. Mr X wants the Council to cancel the outstanding PCN.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Parliament has provided a process whereby the court at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) can decide whether the enforcement stage of a PCN should be set back, when, as in Mr X’s case, a PCN recipient states they did not receive certain notifications about it. Mr X followed this process and the PCN was set back to its original monetary value allowing Mr X to pay or for the matter to be referred to Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT), for an independent parking adjudicator to decide what should happen with the PCN.
7. As Mr X used his court remedy to address the issues he says went wrong in the enforcement procedure, we no longer have any legal remit to investigate these matters.
8. If Mr X has not paid the PCN, the TPT will decide what will happen next and it is the appropriate body to do so. We are not another level of appeal or another decision-making body in the legal process governing the enforcement of PCNs.
9. I recognise that Mr X is unhappy as he says he applied to renew his permit on the day the first PCN was issued. We will not look into this, given the TPT is best placed to decide what should happen next.
10. The Council has discretion to cancel or pursue PCNs. While I recognise Mr X is unhappy that the Council only cancelled one of the PCNs it issued to him, we will not investigate as I consider it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council in this regard. The Council explained to Mr X why it did not consider his case warranted both PCNs being cancelled and this is a decision the Council is entitled to make.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the enforcement of a PCN as the matter has been considered by a court. We will not investigate the current position regarding the PCN as this is for TPT to determine.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman