Summary: Miss X complained the Council incorrectly issued penalty charge notices to her partner, Mr Y, for driving in a Clean Air Zone. The Council was at fault for issuing Mr Y PCNs for a vehicle not owned by him, and continued to do so for a period after Mr Y had highlighted the problem. The Council has already apologised and has agreed to pay Mr Y £100 for the inconvenience, frustration and his time and trouble.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained on behalf of her partner, Mr Y.
2. Miss X complained the Council continued to send Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) to Mr Y (whom she lives with) even though the photographic evidence showed a different vehicle than the one registered to him.
3. She complained the Council would not investigate her complaint, instead it continued to direct her to the appeal process for PCNs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered Miss X’s complaint and spoke to her about it.
7. I also considered the Council’s response to Miss X and to my enquiries.
8. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Enforcement of Clean Air Zones

9. To improve air quality, some councils have introduced Clean Air Zones (CAZ). A CAZ is an area where targeted action is taken to improve the air quality by discouraging the most polluting vehicles from entering the zone. No vehicle is banned but certain vehicles which do not meet the omission standards will need to pay a daily charge if they travel within it.
10. The Council enforces CAZs using Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). If the ANPR camera records a vehicle in the CAZ which does not meet emissions standards and has not made a payment by the sixth day after using the CAZ, then the Council will issue the registered keeper of the vehicle with a PCN.
11. The PCN gives drivers 28 days to make representations to the Council if they disagree with the charge.

What happened

Issuing of incorrect PCNs

12. In September 2021, the Council issued Miss X’s partner, Mr Y a PCN for driving in a CAZ. A few days later, Mr Y made a representation through the statutory process. He explained the vehicle was not his as the camera had mis-identified the number plate.
13. Between December 2021 and September 2022, the Council issued a further 4 PCNs. Mr Y made representations and the Council sent Mr Y a standard apology letter and subsequently cancelled the PCNs.

Complaint

14. In March, at the same time as Mr Y challenged the 3rd PCN, Miss X complained about the Council’s repeated mistakes. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. It said the Council would not investigate her complaint as there is a statutory process in place that must be followed when challenging a PCN.
15. On the same day, Miss X wrote back to the Council and explained they had used the statutory process 3 times and the Council continued to send incorrect PCNs.
16. After receiving the 4th and 5th PCNs, Miss X contacted the Council again. The Council again told her to use the statutory process. Miss X became increasingly frustrated and asked whether there was anyway of stopping the ‘endless cycle’ of disputing PCNs. The Council apologised and explained the cameras are not infallible and mis-reads happen.
17. In October, Miss X brought the complaint to the Ombudsman.

What the Council did

18. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained the procedure for handling recurring problems with numberplate recognition. Initially the Council put the vehicle registrations on a high risk list. These number plates are flagged up to the officer reviewing the captured images. This showed the vehicle had been previously incorrectly issued PCNs by the Council. The system required officers to check the details carefully before issuing a PCN.
19. The Council said, at the time, it expected this would ensure that further PCNs would not be issued incorrectly.
20. The Council records show that after Mr Y’s vehicle was added to the high risk list, the ANPR cameras captured it a further 170 times in a 6 month period (July-December 2022). Out of these 170 captures, only two were incorrectly processed as PCNs to the incorrect vehicle.
21. The Council said that once it realised the system was not infallible, it added Mr Y’s vehicle to a whitelist. This meant the vehicle was not even processed when it was picked up in the CAZ.

My findings

22. The Council introduced the CAZ in June 2021. It had a procedure in place to deal with recurring incidents of misread numberplates. When this system did not work, the Council took a further step to ensure the incorrect PCNs stopped being sent to Mr Y.
23. The Council sent generic letters in response to each of Mr Y’s representations. These did not explain what the Council was doing to address the recurring problem. I have found fault here for the poor communication which caused Mr Y and Miss X frustration and inconvenience.
24. What furthered Mr Y and Miss X’s injustice was the Council’s actions in relation to the complaint process. Miss X’s complaint made it clear that Mr Y had made formal representations each time he received a PCN but the problems continued. Therefore, her complaint was not about the PCNs themselves but the Council’s process for issuing them. For the Council to repeatedly tell her that it cannot investigate her complaint and she should use the statutory process, was fault.
25. This fault caused Mr Y and Miss X avoidable frustration and inconvenience.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Pay Mr Y £100 for the avoidable frustration and inconvenience caused by the Council repeatedly issuing incorrect PCNs.
27. Within 8 weeks of my decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Introduce a procedure which requires officers to keep people (who have provided evidence that the vehicle is not theirs) informed of what the Council is doing to prevent the problem reoccurring.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation. I have found the Council at fault, causing an avoidable injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman