HM Courts and Tribunals Service

3. Mr E complains about the way HMCTS dealt with his PCN. He says it advised him his PCN had been paid in full however, the bailiffs clamped and towed away his car. HMCTS later advised Mr E the letter was sent in error and his PCN was unpaid.

4. Mr E says the error by HMCTS causing his car to be clamped affected him greatly. He says he struggled financially and had to receive financial aid from his university as he could not afford to travel to university. He says this in turn had a detrimental effect on his mental health.

5. By bringing the complaint to us, Mr E would like to be refunded the amount he paid to release his car from the pound, amounting to £683. He would also like to be compensated for the stress the situation has caused him.

6. In 2021, Mr E received a penalty charge notice issued by a local authority. He unsuccessfully appealed this so applied to a court to make a statutory declaration.

7. This is a formal legal declaration and can only be made on the grounds that a person:

• did not receive the Penalty Charge Notice in question • made representations to the issuing authority but did not receive a rejection notice from them; or • appealed to a Road User Charging Adjudicator against the rejection by the issuing authority of representations made by them but had no response to the appeal.

8. If the court accepts the Statutory Declaration, the registration of the debt is cancelled, but not the Penalty Charge Notice.

9. On 5 January 2022, HMCTS wrote to Mr E to say his declaration had been rejected as out of time. However, in error, it said the PCN had been paid in full. On 31 January 2022, HMCTS wrote to Mr E to say an error had been made but, by this time, the LA had arranged for his vehicle to be clamped and towed away.

10. Mr E complained to the LA about what happened and said it laid the blame on HMCTS, Mr E then complained to HMCTS in January 2024.

11. HMCTS later apologised as the letter stating the fine had been paid was sent in error. It awarded Mr E a sum of £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused. However, Mr E would like to be reimbursed for the cost of having to retrieve his car from the pound.

12. The law (Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967) says a person needs to make their complaint to an MP within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to an MP after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so. We have discussed this with Mr E to understand the reasons why he could not do so. We have also considered the time the organisation has taken to respond to Mr E.

13. The timeline of events shows Mr E became aware of the problem in January 2022. It should have been clear to Mr E as early as 5 January 2022, that HMCTS had made an error. Given that he was challenging the PCN, he should have known immediately that HMCTS was wrong to say he had paid it. In any event, HMCTS had corrected its error by 31 January 2022.This meant that, to meet our expectations, he needed to complain in writing to his MP by January 2023. However, he did not do so until August 2024.

14. We have discretion to set the time limit aside in certain circumstances but only if we have evidence which suggests it would be reasonable to do so. For that reason, we have explored with Mr E the reason for this delay.

15. Mr E told us he was struggling with his mental health throughout this period, as well as having caring responsibilities for his mother. He says due to these factors which were consuming his health and time, he did not have the capacity to make the complaint. We are sorry to hear about the difficulties Mr E experienced. The evidence shows this did not prevent him from pursuing a complaint with the Local Authority. We can see no reason why he could not have complained to HMCTS in the same way.

16. Mr E also says complained to the Local Authority prior to HMCTS, which caused delays as it took a long time to reach the end of its complaints process. Although we do not dispute this, as we have said, Mr E was aware of HMCTS’ error (and the claimed impact this had on him – the removal of his vehicle) so he had no reason to delay his complaint.

17. Mr E’s complaint is 19 months out of time. Section 6(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 states ‘A complaint shall not be entertained under this Act unless it is made to a member of the House of Commons not later than twelve months from the day on which the person aggrieved first had notice of the matters alleged in the complaint.’

18. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate this complaint. We understand Mr E went through a difficult period and struggled with both his mental health and his overwhelming responsibilities throughout this time, however, we are unable to set aside the time limit in this instance.

19. We realise this is unlikely to be the outcome Mr E was looking for when he approached us. We hope we have explained our position clearly and thank him for taking the time to bring his complaint to us.

1. We have carefully considered Mr E’s complaint about HMCTS. We are sorry to hear how much distress the situation has caused Mr E. However, we have decided to take no further action on this complaint. This is because Mr E, unfortunately, did not make his complaint to an MP within the timescale set out in law. Nor do we have enough evidence to suggest he was unable to make this complaint sooner.

2. We recognise this has been a difficult time for Mr E and would like to thank him for bringing his concerns to our attention. We also realise this is unlikely to be the outcome he was looking for when he approached us. We hope the following paragraphs, which explain in detail the reasons for our decisions, provide reassurance that we have considered this matter thoroughly.