The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. Further it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council handled Miss Y’s complaint.
The complaint
Miss Y complains the Council sent documentation for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to her previous address. This meant that she did not receive the correspondence and is now being contacted by enforcement agents. Miss Y is also unhappy with the Council’s responses to her complaint about the PCN as she says she struggled to get responses from the Council.
Miss Y says she has found the situation stressful and upsetting.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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) London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Miss Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued a PCN to Miss Y in December 2020. Miss Y says the PCN was sent to a previous address, which she sold in January 2021. The Council says Miss Y appealed the PCN with the Council in early January through the Council’s website. It says it rejected the appeal in February, writing to her at the address previously used.
Miss Y says she did not receive the Council’s PCN or any rejection of an appeal as by this time she had moved house. She says she had also updated her address with the DVLA. As the Council had not received further representations or payment of the PCN, it continued the PCN process, increasing the costs and registering the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), based at Northampton County Court. Enforcement agents then contacted Miss Y at her new property, which Miss Y found upsetting.
Miss Y complained to the Council, saying that she had not received the earlier correspondence. The Council said it had contacted her at the original address as this was the address provided to them by DVLA when it contacted it to issue the PCN and denied fault. Miss Y says wrote again to complaint but struggled to get responses from the Council about the problem receiving the documentation. She said she felt the Council should have checked her address details with the DVLA again for the later correspondence, which would have showed that she had moved.
The Council then responded in April 2022, denying fault and providing Miss Y with details of her right to appeal the PCN through the TEC in the first instance. Miss Y then approached us in April.
Analysis Miss Y has a right to submit a statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre, asking it to remove the charge certificate for the PCN. Miss Y can apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) to make a late statutory declaration.
If the TEC accepts Miss Y’s application it can take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the PCN and reinstating Miss Y’s right of appeal against it to the Council initially, if she did not receive the original PCN, or directly to the London Tribunals if she has already appealed to the Council but did not receive the response. Miss Y can then decide if she wishes to appeal the PCN or pay the penalty.
This is often free in the initial stages and reasonable adjustments can be made where necessary for access to the service.
Consequently, as Miss Y has not provided any other reason why she cannot, it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to use her right to appeal. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. As explained in paragraph six, where we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of this public resources for us to investigate complaints about complaint handling.
In this case, as we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate the Council’s handling of Miss Y’s complaint about not receiving the PCN documentation. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to use her right to appeal to the TEC and the London Tribunals.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman