Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. This is because it would be reasonable for Ms X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to make a late witness statement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains she did not receive a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council and did not therefore have the opportunity to challenge it. She also complains the Council instructed enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover payment for the PCN and they were difficult to contact and threatened to take her van.

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 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)
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. 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’.
8. 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 the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
9. 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 Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court to register the debt, before instructing enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover it.
10. Because Ms X did not receive the notice to owner she may apply to the TEC to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case. The Council informed her of this process at the time and although Ms X did not follow it, she may apply to make a witness statement ‘out of time’ (late) now.
11. If the TEC accepts Ms X’s application it may order the Council to take the process back to an earlier stage, reinstating her right of appeal and removing any additional charges from the amount owed. If the TEC refuses Ms X’s application she may apply for a review.
12. The witness statement process has been specifically designed to deal with issues such as the one Ms X describes and it is relatively easy to follow. The TEC’s decisions are also binding on both parties. I therefore consider it would be reasonable for Ms X to use it here.
13. While Ms X also raises concerns about the Council’s bailiffs, they were entitled to pursue her for payment including visiting her property and, if necessary, taking her van. The amount of the PCN and the additional charges are all set by law and the difficulty Ms X describes in contacting the bailiffs is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Ms X to make a witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and she may apply to make a late witness statement now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman