The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s handling of his complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because the issues he raises fall outside our jurisdiction.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, is unhappy with the Council’s handling of his complaint about a penalty charge notice (PCN). He says the Council sent information about the PCN, which contained his personal details, to a third party and failed to discuss the situation with Mr X in order to agree a resolution.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal but cannot investigate if the person has already appealed. (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. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court but cannot investigate if the person has already been to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them. When a council issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal; appeals at this stage are known as ‘informal challenges’.
If the motorist submits an informal challenge to a PCN and the Council decides not to accept them, it will write to the motorist and explain why. If the motorist accepts the Council’s reasons they may pay the PCN; if not, they may wait for a ‘notice to owner’. This provides a further opportunity for the owner of the vehicle to pay the charge or make ‘formal representations’ against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
If the motorist does not pay or make formal representations the council will issue a charge certificate, increasing the amount payable by 50%. It may then apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court to register the debt, before instructing enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover it.
Mr X did not receive the Council’s correspondence about the PCN; he therefore applied to the TEC to challenge the Council’s escalation of the PCN by making a witness statement. The TEC accepted Mr X’s witness statement and took the appeals process back to an earlier stage. This allowed Mr X to appeal against the PCN and his appeal was successful. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal therefore cancelled the PCN.
Because Mr X has appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal we have no jurisdiction to investigate any complaint about the PCN. We cannot therefore consider any concerns Mr X may have about the issue of the PCN and the effort he has gone to, to challenge it. We also cannot look at the Council’s escalation of the PCN, including the fact he did not receive its correspondence, as Mr X has challenged this at court.
Mr X says he is complaining about the Council’s handling of his complaint but caselaw has established that such issues are not sufficiently separate to bring them within our jurisdiction. Mr X’s complaint to the Council concerned matters which we cannot investigate and the law does not allow us to consider the Council’s handling of the complaint as a separate issue.
Mr X also raises concerns about a possible breach of data protection by the Council but this is an issue which is more appropriate for consideration by the Information Commissioner.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has applied to the TEC to make a witness statement and challenged the PCN by appealing to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Any complaint about the PCN and the Council’s actions to escalate it, along with Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his complaint, therefore fall outside our jurisdiction. Mr X’s concerns about data protection are more appropriate for consideration by the Information Commissioner.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman