The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council failed to send her a penalty charge notice (PCN) and ignored her communications about the matter. Ms X has used an alternative remedy to the Ombudsman so we cannot investigate. The Traffic Enforcement Centre has quashed the debt recovery order and required the Council to reissue the PCN which it has done.
The complaint
Complaint 1: Ms X complains the Council failed, in April 2021, to send her a penalty charge notice (PCN) for a moving traffic contravention. Ms X says she first knew about the fine when she received the charge certificate around the start of June. Ms X says the Council failed to reply to her representations sent on 3 June, 8 November, and in February 2022.
Complaint 2: Ms X complains the Council failed to deal with her complaint sent in February 2022. She says she did not receive the Council’s reply which it says was sent on 14 February. The letter included a limited offer allowing her to pay the PCN at the discounted rate. Ms X complains the Council repeatedly ignored her and took over 8 months to write. She finds it strange the Council wrote by post when other communications were by email.
Ms X says the Council has caused her time, trouble, and stress that it might instruct a bailiff. She is disappointed in the complaint handling. She says the Council should cancel the penalty charge notice or offer the discounted rate again and pay £350 compensation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information and comments provided by Ms X and the Council. The information includes the Traffic Enforcement Centre’s decision earlier this month and the Council’s reissued penalty charge notice.
My assessment
The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint for the following reason: Ms X has used her right to challenge the debt recovery at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) which is part of the County Court. Ms X has therefore used an alternative legal remedy which puts the first complaint outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (see paragraphs 4 and 5 above). On 5 April, the TEC issued a notice quashing the debt recovery order and the Council’s charge certificate. It accepted Ms X’s statutory declaration that she had not received the penalty charge notice (PCN).
On 23 April 2022 the Council reissued the PCN which gives Ms X the opportunity to either pay the discounted fine of £65 or make representations and appeal to the London Tribunals adjudicator. The PCN is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (see paragraph 6). I consider it reasonable for Ms X to use her right of appeal if she wants to pursue the matter. The Tribunal has the power to quash the PCN.
The Ombudsman will rarely investigate complaint handling when not investigating the substantive complaint. We cannot achieve what Ms X wants because we cannot investigate actions relating to the PCN case, as explained above.
Final decision
The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council failed to send her a penalty charge notice (PCN) and ignored her communications about the matter. Ms X has used an alternative remedy to the Ombudsman so we cannot investigate. The Traffic Enforcement Centre has quashed the debt recovery order and required the Council to reissue the PCN which it has done.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman