The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention which he disputes. This is because the validity of the penalty charge notice is a matter for London Tribunals and it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to reinstate his right of appeal.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly issued him a penalty charge notice (PCN) and failed to respond to his appeal. He says the Council has now instructed enforcement agents (bailiffs) who have threatened to take his belongings. He wishes to take legal action against the Council for fraud and breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998.
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. 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) London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
London Tribunals is the appropriate body to deal with appeals against PCNs. However before a motorist can appeal to London Tribunals they must make representations to the authority that issued the PCN under the statutory appeals process.
Mr X suggests he made representations to the Council but did not receive a response. The Council has now escalated the PCN, registered it as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) and instructed bailiffs to recover the debt from Mr X. Mr X suggests he will make a claim against the Council for fraud and breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 but there is a process for the issue he raises which it would be reasonable for him to follow.
First, Mr X may apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement. There are several grounds on which a motorist may apply to make a late witness statement so Mr X should consider which of these apply in his case. If the TEC refuses Mr X’s application Mr X may ask for a review of its decision.
If the TEC accepts Mr X’s application it can take the case back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the PCN and reinstating Mr X’s right of appeal against it. It would then be reasonable for Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals.
We consider it reasonable for Mr X to use the alternative remedy available to him and we will not therefore exercise our discretion to investigate the complaint further.
We cannot advise Mr X about his proposed legal action against the Council for fraud and breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998; Mr X may wish to seek legal advice before proceeding with this.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement. If successful he may challenge the PCN by way of an appeal to London Tribunals.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman