Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of two penalty charge notices. This is because the penalty charge notices carried a right of appeal and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to reinstate his right of appeal. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting Mr X’s right of appeal and the Council’s agreement to accept payment at the discounted rate of £70 per penalty charge notice provides a suitable remedy for the complaint. It is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s issue and handling of two penalty charge notices (PCNs). He says the Council:
• didn’t take account of his mental health issues,
• wrongly dismissed his challenge to the PCNs,
• failed to properly register the case with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court,
• ignored his correspondence,
• failed to allow him to appeal to the TEC,
• did not put the case on hold while he complained
• breached the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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.
6. 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)
7. 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.
8. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
10. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

11. When a council issues a PCN and the recipient disputes it they may challenge the PCN, firstly by making an informal challenge or formal representations to the Council and then appealing to an adjudicator at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
12. The Council issued Mr X two PCNs and Mr X informally challenged one of them. The Council rejected Mr X’s challenge and told him he may wait for the ‘notice to owner’ to make formal representations, following which he could appeal to an independent adjudicator. It then issued Mr X the notice to owner. But Mr X did not appeal so the Council escalated the cases and applied to register the PCNs with the TEC. It then wrote to Mr X explaining the PCNs had been registered and that he could apply to challenge the registration on certain limited grounds.
13. Mr X tried to challenge the registration of one of the cases but the TEC refused his application. This was because it said the PCN had not been registered. When Mr X raised this with the Council it applied to the TEC to register the case again. This time the TEC accepted the application and the Council reissued the paperwork to Mr X to allow Mr X to challenge the registration again. Mr X did not do so, so the Council progressed the case progressed further and instructed enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover payment from him.
14. Mr X complained to the Council and it partially upheld his complaint. It recommended Mr X apply to the TEC to challenge its registration of the PCNs but offered to accept payment for the PCNs at the discounted rate of £70 each. Mr X paid the bailiffs £140 and the Council closed the cases. But Mr X remains unhappy. He also claims the Council sent him an open letter containing his personal information, which he believes amounts to a breach of the GDPR.

Analysis

15. The appeals process is specifically designed to deal with challenges to PCNs and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use it in this case. I note Mr X says he has mental health issues and believes he should have been offered advice or support in dealing with the PCNs but his actions show he was able to dispute the PCNs, apply to the TEC, complain to the Council and refer his complaint to us without any additional advice or support. I do not therefore consider the Council’s actions, whether fault or not, affected his ability to deal with the PCNs or to challenge them using the various processes available to him.
16. Mr X’s application to the TEC suggests he may not have received some of the Council’s correspondence about the PCN and that this may have impacted on his ability to appeal. But the Council’s letters confirming registration of the PCNs with the TEC contained clear instructions about how to challenge the registration and I therefore consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use that process to reinstate his right of appeal.
17. I acknowledge Mr X tried to challenge registration of one of the cases with the TEC and that the TEC refused to consider his application due to an error with the registration. But I have seen no evidence to show this was the result of any fault by the Council. The process is largely automated and councils periodically send lists of PCNs to the TEC to register. They then rely, as they are entitled to, on the TEC’s response to notify it of any errors in the registration process or for it to inform the council of any refusal to register a PCN. In this case the TEC did not notify the Council of any errors relating to Mr X’s PCN and did not tell the Council that it had refused to register the case. It was therefore reasonable for the Council to assume the PCN had been registered and to issue the relevant paperwork to Mr X.
18. In any event the Council issued Mr X two further letters- one for each PCN- regarding the registration and these letters also clearly explained Mr X’s right to apply to the TEC. I do not therefore consider the issue described above prevented Mr X from using the process.
19. There was no requirement for the Council to put the cases on hold while it, or we, considered Mr X’s complaint. It did however offer to accept payment of both PCNs at the discounted rate of £70 per PCN and this provided a considerable benefit to Mr X as it removed all surcharges and bailiff fees. This is a suitable outcome for the complaint and it is unlikely we would recommend anything more.
20. While Mr X claims the Council has breached the GDPR, this is a matter for the Information Commissioner. They are better placed to decide if the issue Mr X complains about amounts to a breach and, if it does, Mr X may claim damages through the courts. Mr X claims he suffered anxiety as a result of the alleged breach but the courts are better placed to determine the extent of the impact and what compensation, if any, Mr X is due.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X’s main injustice stems from the PCNs issued by the Council and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal against them, or to apply to the TEC to reinstate his right of appeal. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council impacting Mr X’s right of appeal and the Council’s agreement to accept payment of each PCN at £70 provides a suitable remedy for the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman