Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s enforcement of several penalty charge notices for contraventions of its clean air zone. This is because the Council has agreed to cancel the penalty charge notices and refund Ms X’s payments and this provides a suitable remedy for Ms X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council’s enforcement agents (bailiffs) visited her property and tried to remove her car due to unpaid penalty charge notices (PCNs) for driving in the Council’s clean air zone (CAZ) without paying the charge. Ms X says she is disabled and has registered her car as such and that at the time the bailiffs visited her she had applied to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) to cancel the Council’s escalation of the PCNs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. The 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council issued Ms X PCNs for driving in the CAZ without paying the charge. At the time of issue Ms X’s car did not show as exempt from the charge; this was updated later and the Council accepts Ms X’s car is now exempt.
7. The Council therefore considers it was correct to issue the PCNs and to pursue Ms X for payment. Ms X says she did not receive correspondence from the Council about the PCNs so she applied to the TEC to challenge the Council’s escalation of the cases and its registration of the debts with the court. The TEC has now accepted these applications and ordered the Council to take the PCNs back to an earlier stage. This means the Council could reissue the PCNs and escalate them again, subject to any successful appeal by Ms X.
8. However, in response to the complaint the Council has agreed to cancel the PCNs and take no further action in respect of them. This provides a significant benefit to Ms X as it means she is no longer liable for paying the PCNs and does not have to go to the effort of appealing against them. The Council has also agreed to refund the payments Ms X has already made.
9. While I appreciate Ms X was distressed about the possible removal of her car she confirms her husband moved it and that the Council’s bailiffs did not therefore seize it from her. We cannot recommend a remedy for something which could have happened but did not.
10. I consider the Council’s actions provide a suitable remedy for the complaint and it is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for Ms X.
11. Ms X suggests the Council should be punished or fined for its actions in the same way she was for the CAZ contraventions, but this is not how our remedies work and we have no powers to take punitive action against any council.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s agreement to cancel the PCNs and refund Ms X’s payments provides a suitable remedy for Ms X and it is unlikely investigation would achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman