The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.
The complaint
Miss Y complained the Council wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice and then pursued her for the penalty, despite her not receiving a response to her appeal. Miss Y says she has now been contacted by bailiffs and has been caused significant distress and upset.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review 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 use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Miss Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss Y has a right to submit a late witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), asking it to allow Miss Y to go back in the process to an earlier stage, including potentially reinstating Miss Y’s right of appeal against the PCN to the Council initially and then the London Tribunals. This can still be done if Miss Y has paid the bailiffs under duress. Miss Y can then decide if she wishes to appeal the PCN or pay the penalty, potentially at a reduced amount, if the TEC accepts her application.
If successful at the TEC, Miss Y can appeal to the London Tribunals.
The London Tribunals can consider how the Council dealt with Miss Y’s representations, and whether it followed the correct process. If it finds that it did not consider her representations properly, it can then consider the issues Mrs Y has raised as the reasons why the PCN is either invalid or should not be enforced.
This process is free in the initial stages and reasonable adjustments can be made where necessary for access to the service.
Consequently, as Miss Y has not provided any other reason why she cannot, it is reasonable to expect her to use this right to appeal. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman