The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pursuit of payment for outstanding penalty charge notices he did not receive. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to challenge the Council’s escalation of the penalty charge notices.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council is pursuing him for payment for penalty charge notices (PCNs) he did not receive. He disputes the PCNs issued for a prohibited turn as he says the Council’s signs are not visible. He says he cannot afford to pay the PCNs and wants the Council to set up a payment plan so he can pay the debt over time. The Council’s enforcement agents (bailiffs) have threatened to seize his car and sell it at auction.
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. 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
The Council and its enforcement agents do not have to agree to a payment plan as a way for Mr X to pay the outstanding PCNs and associated fees. The Council has registered the PCNs as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court and it entitled to seize and remove Mr X’s goods as a way to pay the debt.
The PCNs have escalated to this point because Mr X did not receive them and has neither successfully challenged nor paid them. This was the result of Mr X’s failure to update his details with the DVLA, which is a legal requirement.
However, because Mr X did not receive the PCNs he may challenge the Council’s escalation of the cases at court. Where the Council has already registered the PCNs with the TEC Mr X may apply to file statutory declarations/witness statements on the grounds he did not receive the PCNs. If the PCNs were registered more than 21 days ago, Mr X may apply to make the statutory declarations/witness statements ‘out of time’.
Where the Council has yet to register the PCNs with the TEC he may wait for notification it has done so; he may then apply to file statutory declarations/witness statements to challenge the registration once completed.
If the TEC accepts Mr X’s applications it may order the Council to take the PCNs back to an earlier stage, reinstating Mr X’s right of appeal against them and reducing the amount owed. If the TEC refuses Mr X’s applications he may apply for a review of its decisions. While the TEC considers Mr X’s applications the Council must put the cases on hold.
The process could achieve more for Mr X than we could at this stage and it would therefore be reasonable for Mr X to use it.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to challenge the Council’s escalation of the PCNs with the TEC.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman