Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme implemented by the Council, and associated penalty charge notices received by the complainant. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have use the alternative remedies which were available.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme implemented by the Council, which resulted in her receiving five penalty charge notices (PCN). Ms X says the Council failed to recognise her disability and make reasonable adjustments, and she is facing discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. With regard to the first bullet point, we can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made a decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. And in relation to the second bullet point, 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)
6. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
7. Similarly, 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)
8. 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

9. I considered:
• information provided by Ms X and the Council, which included the Council’s complaint responses and its response to Ms X’s pre-action protocol letter.
• information about the LTN scheme on the Council’s webpages.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

The PCN process

10. If a motorist breaks moving traffic rules, they might receive a PCN.
11. The authority will send the PCN to the person who appears to own the vehicle (usually the registered keeper) by post. The PCN will show the fine amount and how to appeal.
12. The motorist has 28 days from the date of the notice to pay the fine or ‘make representations’ against it.
13. The fine is usually halved if it is paid within 14 days in London.
14. If the authority rejects the representations, by issuing a Notice of Rejection, the motorist can appeal to London Tribunals. 
15. The authority can then issue a charge certificate which increases the fine by 50% if:

• the fine is not paid; or
• the motorist does not appeal against the fine; or
• the appeal is not successful.

16. If the fine is still not paid, the authority can register the debt with the TEC. The authority can then ask enforcement agents (bailiffs) to collect payment for the fine and the bailiff’s costs.
17. The motorist can also apply to the TEC to ask them to cancel the registration of the debt. They do this by filling in a witness statement or statutory declaration.
18. If the motorist is successful, the TEC might order the authority to go back to an earlier stage which will reduce the fine and they will not have to pay the bailiff’s costs. It might also give them back their right to appeal.
19. If the motorist is too late to make a witness statement they might be able to ask the TEC to look at their application ‘out of time’. If the TEC will not look at the application ‘out of time’ they might be able to ask them to review their decision.

My findings

The LTN

20. I appreciate Ms X might disagree with the Council’s decision to implement the LTN scheme in her local area. But I have seen nothing to suggest there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision, so the Ombudsman will not investigate this part of the complaint. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that:
• the Council carried out various engagement/consultation activities before implementing the scheme.
• the Council conducted an equality impact assessment prior to implementing the scheme, and in the subsequent monitoring period.
• the Council implemented the scheme using an experimental traffic order, which includes a 6-month statutory consultation period.
• blue badge holders were able to apply for a dispensation to the scheme.

The PCNs

21. I also consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has enforced the PCNs Ms X received, as it has followed the enforcement process detailed in paragraphs 10 to 19 above. I am particularly mindful that:
• Ms X had not applied for a blue badge dispensation prior to the PCNs being issued.
• with regard to the first and third PCNs issued, the Council received no representations, and no statutory declaration was submitted to the TEC, so I understand each case remains with the enforcement agents.
• in relation to the second PCN, Ms X submitted a late statutory declaration to the TEC, but this was refused, so I understand that case also remains with the enforcement agents.
• in relation to the fourth and fifth PCNs, the TEC granted the statutory declarations submitted by Ms X. The Council considered her representations and issued Notices of Rejection. As no payments were subsequently received or appeals filed with London Tribunals, the Council reissued Charge Certificates for these PCNs.
22. And in terms of the merits of the PCNs themselves, I see no reasons why Ms X should not be expected to have used the tribunal and/or court remedies that were available to her, so we will not investigate this part of the complaint either.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council implemented the LTN or in the way it enforced the PCNs she received, and it is reasonable to expect her to have used the alternative remedies which were available.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman