Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council explained the process of challenging a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) on its website. The Council was at fault for having unclear information about challenging PCNs on its website and for not having a parking enforcement policy. This did not cause Mr X an injustice because the Council’s subsequent letters to Mr X appropriately explained the process. The Council has agreed to review the information on its website to ensure it is clear and to produce a parking enforcement policy in accordance with the statutory guidance.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council explained the process of challenging a parking penalty charge notice on its website. Mr X says this meant he lost an opportunity to appeal the notice and had to pay a significantly larger sum as a result.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. We considered:
• all the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him;
• the supporting documents the Council provided; and
• the relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.
5. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. We considered comments before making a final decision

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Process of enforcement

6. The Traffic Management Act 2004 gives councils the power to enforce parking restrictions by issuing penalty charge notices (PCNs).
7. On receipt of a PCN motorists can pay a reduced penalty of 50% if they pay within 14 days. If the person does not agree with the PCN, they have a number of opportunities to challenge it. First, they can make an informal challenge within 28 days of the PCN’s issue. If the challenge is successful, the council will cancel the PCN. If the council rejects the challenge, it should give the person a further opportunity to pay the PCN at the reduced price.
8. Statutory guidance ‘Guidance for local authorities on enforcing parking restrictions’ (the Guidance) says that if a council rejects an informal challenge, it should tell the person that if they do not pay the charge, it may issue a Notice to Owner (NtO), which would give them the right to make a formal challenge (formal representations) to it. If the person pays the PCN after receiving the NtO, they will have to pay the full price.
9. The Guidance also says that if the council rejects a person’s formal representations then it should tell the person they have a right of appeal to the independent adjudicator.
10. If the person does not appeal to the independent adjudicator, or appeals unsuccessfully, and still does not pay the penalty charge, a council can issue a charge certificate. At this time, the penalty payable is increased by a further 50%, if it is not paid within 14 days.
11. After that time, the council can register the charge at the Court, which adds a registration fee to the debt. The person then has the opportunity to send a witness statement to the Court to challenge the PCN. If the debt remains payable, the council can then seek to pass the debt to bailiffs for recovery. The bailiffs may recover their own costs. This is initially £75 and a further £235 if they visit the person’s property to recover the council debt.

Publication of enforcement policies

12. The Guidance states that enforcement authorities (such as the Council) should publish their enforcement policies so that people can understand what parking restrictions are in place and why.

What happened

Mr X’s PCN challenge

13. In March 2021, the Council issued Mr X with a PCN for parking on a single yellow line at a non-permitted time. Mr X had 28 days to pay the fine of £110. If he paid within fourteen days, the charge would be £55.
14. Mr X contacted the Council the same day to challenge the PCN. The Council responded in mid-April to reject Mr X’s informal challenge. Its letter said it had noted Mr X’s comments. It had checked the details of the notice but it was satisfied it had issued the PCN correctly. The letter said ‘if paid within fourteen days it would accept the reduced rate of £55. After this point the full charge of £110 would become due’. It said ‘If you do not wish to accept this decision you are able to appeal further to the Councils Parking Appeals section. To do this you must wait for a Notice to Owner…... Once this has been received you will be required to follow the instructions to make a formal representation. Should your representation be rejected you will be sent a form to appeal to the Independent Adjudicator whose decision is final’.
15. The Council issued the NtO in May 2021. This told Mr X, ‘the Notice to Owner is served as the PCN has not been paid’ and said Mr X was ‘legally responsible for complying with this Notice to Owner’. The NtO said ‘You may make representations to the authority against this Notice’ and referred to the section ‘How to make a representation’ which listed the statutory grounds. It said that if Mr X did not make representations or did not pay the charge within 28 days beginning with the date when the NtO was served, it may increase the charge and take enforcement action.
16. Mr X did not make formal representations, so the Council issued a charge certificate in mid-June which increased the cost to £165. It sent a reminder in early July which said that if Mr X did not pay, then it would register the debt with the court. A few weeks later it sent a final reminder which explained the Court process offered a final opportunity to challenge the PCN but if he did not do so, or was unsuccessful, it would pass the debt to bailiffs. It detailed the extra costs that would incur.
17. Mr X and the Council exchanged emails about the PCN in mid-August. In summary, Mr X said he had appealed and received a rejection of that appeal in mid-April. He said the Council's rejection letter said he needed to wait for a form to appeal to the independent adjudicator, which he had been doing. The Council responded and explained the process for challenging the PCN and confirmed Mr X had only informally challenged the PCN so far. The Council confirmed to Mr X that it had sent him the Order for Recovery and advised him to comply with that notice.
18. The Order for Recovery told Mr X to pay the debt by the end of September 2021 or file a statement with the TEC if he believed he had grounds for not paying the charge. The Order for Recovery explained how Mr X could make a witness statement and the grounds for doing so. It told Mr X ‘if you do nothing your possessions may be removed and sold to pay this charge’.
19. Mr X did not pay the PCN or send a witness statement to the TEC, so bailiffs visited his property to recover the debt. Mr X paid the Council £173 and the bailiffs £310.
20. Mr X told us that his only concern was that the Council's website did not clearly state the process for challenging the PCN and in particular, that it did not state that people had to submit an informal challenge and then formal representations in order to have a right to appeal to the independent adjudicator. He said the lack of accurate information on the website led him to believe that all subsequent letters from the Council and Court were mistakenly sent.

Published information on parking enforcement

21. In response to our enquiries, the Council explained it does not have a parking enforcement policy. It also sent us a view of what people challenging a PCN on its website saw when they submit an informal challenge. This included a page which explained how someone could challenge a PCN. This related only to the informal challenge process.
22. A subsequent webpage provided an overview of informal challenge, formal representation and appeal process. However, it did not clearly set out the difference between the stages, including that the challenge stage preceded representations and at what point the person would no longer be able to pay the PCN at the reduced price.

Findings

Mr X’s challenge

23. Mr X says the Council’s website did not properly explain he had to make an informal challenge and then formal representations before having the right to appeal to the independent adjudicator. I have seen the webpages Mr X would have seen when making his informal challenge and agree they did not sufficiently explain the process for challenging the PCN. While the Guidance does not require councils to put information about how to challenge PCN’s on its website, if the Council allows people to submit challenges online, it should ensure the information it gives is readily understandable. To not do so is poor administrative practice and was fault.
24. However, this did not cause Mr X an injustice because the Council’s letters and emails to him did adequately and appropriately explain that the debt remained unpaid and how Mr X could further challenge the PCN. The letters were clear about what would happen next if the debt remained unpaid. That information came direct from the Council and so could be relied upon to be up to date and accurate. The Council's rejection letter explained the next steps available to Mr X; paying the charge or formally challenging the PCN. It explained that if Mr X submitted formal representations and the Council rejected it, it would then send him information on how to appeal to the independent adjudicator. The NtO, charge certificate and the Order for Recovery all explained the options available to Mr X at that time. The Council gave Mr X the appropriate information, including that required by the Guidance. The email exchange between the Council and Mr X in August 2021 appropriately explained the steps the Council had taken and what options were left open to Mr X.

Published information on parking enforcement

25. The Guidance states councils should publish their enforcement policies. The Council does not have a parking enforcement policy. This means people living in its area do not have a clear way of understanding what parking restrictions are in force and for what reason. This did not cause Mr X an injustice because the purpose of the policy is not to set out how people can challenge parking fines and as set out above, the Council gave Mr X sufficient information around how he could challenge the fine.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. Within three months of the final decision the Council has agreed to review the information on its website to ensure it clearly explain the stages for challenging a penalty charge notice including the informal challenge, formal representation, and appeal to independent adjudicator stages. It should use consistent wording for each stage to prevent confusion to the reader about what stage they are at.
27. Within six months of the final decision the Council has agreed to prepare a parking enforcement policy in accordance with the statutory guidance ‘Guidance for local authorities on enforcing parking restrictions’ and ensure it is available to the public, preferably through publishing it on its website.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed our investigation. We have found fault but it did not cause an injustice to Mr X. The Council agreed to service improvements to prevent reoccurrence of this fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman