The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a parking ticket. This is because the complainant has used his right to submit a witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council mishandled his appeal against a parking penalty (PCN). He said this led to increased charges, distress and inconvenience.
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 courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916).
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 the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says the Council failed to respond to his appeal about a PCN, gave incorrect advice and then pursued recovery action using enforcement agents. He says he was forced to pay an agent £515 when they clamped his car.
The Council said it had not received an appeal from Mr X. It noted Mr X had applied to the TEC with a late witness statement and had not received a decision. The Council agreed it had delayed, and information it gave was incorrect in some calls. It offered Mr X a financial remedy.
As Mr X has appealed to the TEC we cannot investigate his complaint for the reasons set out in paragraph 3.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has used his right to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman