The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that he did not receive a penalty charge notice issued by the Council because it would have been reasonable for him to make a statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to his correspondence, and that it took too long to register the case with the Traffic Enforcement Centre, because these issues did not affect the outcome or cause Mr X significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains he did not receive a penalty charge notice (PCN) from the Council, that it did not respond to his correspondence about the PCN and took too long to pursue the matter.
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 PCN process There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for moving traffic contraventions. When a council identifies a contravention it will issue a PCN to the owner/registered keeper by post. This will detail the amount of the fine and the motorist’s right of appeal, firstly to the council itself and then to a Tribunal.
The motorist has 28 days from the date of the notice to pay the penalty charge or make representations against it. For the first 14 days after the PCN the motorist may pay at a discounted rate of 50% of the full fine.
If the motorist does not pay the PCN or challenge it, or if their representations are unsuccessful, the council may issue a charge certificate increasing the amount of the penalty charge by 50%. If the charge remains unpaid the council may then register the debt with the county court and serve an order for recovery, providing a basis for action by enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover payment from the motorist.
Mr X’s case The Council issued Mr X a PCN in September 2021. Mr X says he did not receive the PCN and only became aware of it when he received the charge certificate in November 2021. He contacted the Council but says he received no response, so he believed the Council had cancelled the PCN.
Mr X did not hear from the Council again until February 2024 when he received a Notice of Enforcement confirming it had registered the unpaid PCN as a debt with the TEC. He contacted the Council to dispute the PCN but it told him he was too late and that he should deal with the bailiffs or apply to the TEC to submit a statutory declaration.
Mr X says he contacted the TEC by phone and email but it told him the case was not with them. He therefore paid the PCN to avoid further escalation and additional costs.
Although Mr X is unhappy the Council did not respond to his correspondence about the PCN in November 2021 and that it did not pursue the matter further until several years later I cannot say this caused him significant injustice. This is because neither of these issues affected the outcome; Mr X was out of time to appeal when he contacted the Council in November 2021 and he was not penalised as a result of the Council’s delay in registering the case with the TEC. Any injustice is therefore limited to Mr X’s surprise in finding out he still needed to pay the PCN in February 2024 and this is not significant enough to warrant investigation.
When Mr X contacted the Council in February 2024 the Council told him quickly that he should file a statutory declaration with the TEC and this is the appropriate way to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case; we will not therefore consider this point further.
Mr X says he telephoned and emailed the TEC about this but there is no suggestion he made a formal application as he should have done. If Mr X was wrongly advised by the TEC, resulting in him paying the PCN rather than challenging its escalation further, he may wish to raise a complaint with the TEC. He may also apply to make a statutory declaration now, ‘out of time’. But the Council is not responsible for any wrong advice the TEC gave Mr X.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that he did not receive a PCN issued by the Council because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to make a statutory declaration. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to his correspondence in November 2021 and its delay in progressing the case because these issues did not cause him significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman