The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his appeal against a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to apply to the court to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case by making a witness statement.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council refused to issue him a ‘notice of rejection’ so he could appeal against a penalty charge notice (PCN) to London Tribunals. He says he has not received any correspondence about the PCN as he moved house.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) 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 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) The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is part of Northampton County Court. It considers applications from local authorities to pursue payment of unpaid PCNs and from motorists to challenge local authorities’ pursuit of unpaid PCNs.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The statutory process 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 London Tribunals.
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 TEC to register the debt, before instructing enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover it.
Mr X’s case Mr X informally challenged the PCN in October 2023 but the Council rejected his challenge. It explained Mr X could pay the PCN at the discounted rate of £65 within 14 days or the full rate of £130 within 28 days.
Mr X did not pay the PCN so the Council issued a notice to owner on 27 November 2023. This gave Mr X a further 28 days to pay the PCN or make representations. Mr X did not pay the PCN and the Council received no representations so it issued a charge certificate on 3 January 2024.
Mr X has provided evidence to show he emailed the Council with his representations, along with notification that he had moved, on 23 January 2024. But this email was incorrectly addressed and was sent after the deadline. Mr X forwarded the email to the correct email address two weeks later but the Council declined to consider his late appeal.
The Council’s response, dated 22 February 2024, explained that if Mr X did not pay the PCN within 21 days it would apply to the TEC for a Warrant of Control allowing its bailiffs to recover payment from him. But it stated that if he did not receive the notice to owner, or if he made a representation within 28 days of the notice to owner but did not receive a response, he may make a witness statement to the TEC.
Analysis I have seen no evidence to show any fault by the Council or to persuade me its actions wrongly affected Mr X’s right of appeal against the PCN. Mr X’s emails, which set out the basis for his appeal, date from after the expiry of the statutory period for making representations and the Council was therefore entitled to disregard them.
Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman states he did not receive any paperwork from the Council after he moved house on 25 November 2023 but if he did not receive the notice to owner it would have been reasonable for him to make a witness statement to the TEC. The Council’s letter dated 22 February 2024 clearly explained this process to Mr X but I have seen nothing to suggest he used it. Had he done so the TEC may have ordered the Council to take the process back to an earlier stage, reinstating his right of appeal as he wants.
The process remains available to Mr X but he would now have to make an application ‘out of time’. This means he would need to give reasons for not applying sooner and that the TEC may decide not to consider his application. If it decides not to consider his application Mr X may apply for a review of the decision.
The process is designed specifically to deal with issues such as those set out by Mr X in his complaint and I have seen nothing to suggest it would not be reasonable for Mr X to use it.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to make a witness statement to the TEC.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman