Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her correspondence about a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council for stopping in a yellow box junction. She says the Council has not provided evidence showing her entering the junction and believes the Council has failed to consider her mitigating circumstances.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X disputes the PCN on the grounds the Council’s evidence does not show her entering the yellow box junction when the exit was not clear. But the Council issued the PCN because she stopped in the yellow box, which is not allowed. If the exit had been clear for Ms X she would not have stopped.
6. There is a right of appeal against any PCNs issued by the Council but Ms X says she could not use this at the time due to personal problems. She contacted the Council more than six months after the issue of the PCN asking for CCTV evidence and disputing the contravention. She also set out mitigating circumstances including that she may have misjudged whether the exit was clear, that it was dark and she was driving on a busy road she had not driven on before. She also told the Council she had no savings and lived on a pension.
7. The Council considered these points and responded to them but it decided not to cancel the PCN or take it back to an earlier stage. It told Ms X to contact its enforcement agents (bailiffs) to ask about a payment plan and informed her of her right to go to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) to challenge its escalation of the case.
8. I have seen nothing to show Ms X had grounds to apply to the TEC so I do not consider this provided her with a suitable alternative remedy for the issue she has raised. Nevertheless, the Council correctly advised Ms X about her rights and I have seen no evidence of fault in its handling of her case. Because there is no evidence of fault by the Council I cannot say it must withdraw the case from its bailiffs or cancel the PCN, which is what Ms X wants. Ms X should therefore contact the bailiffs to discuss how to proceed and may ask them to treat her as a ‘vulnerable debtor’.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman