Summary: Mrs D says the Council failed to make checks after receiving her representations challenging a penalty charge notice (PCN). We found evidence of fault by the Council, upheld the complaint and completed the investigation. The Council has accepted fault and agreed to cancel the PCN and pay Mrs D for her time and trouble.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mrs D) says the Council failed to make reasonable checks once it received her representations in response to a penalty charge notice (PCN) in 2022.

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. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. At the end of November 2021, the Council issued two PCNs including one for parking without a valid permit. That is the PCN this case is mainly about. Subsequent checks showed the vehicle was registered to Mrs D and on 6 January 2022 the Council sent her a Notice to Owner requiring payment of the PCN and advising her about her right to make representations. On 10 February the Council issued a Charge Certificate to Mrs D. On 23 February the Council received a letter from Mrs D stating her vehicle had been stolen before the contravention occurred. She had reported the theft to the Police and DVLA. Mrs D did not provide any supporting evidence to the Council. On 4 April the Council replied to Mrs D stating there were “no grounds for cancellation” of the PCN. The letter did not address the points raised by Mrs D.
7. In August the Council issued the Order for Recovery to Mrs D which also included information on how to appeal. As no payment or appeal was made the case progressed to enforcement agents for debt recovery. In June 2023 Mrs D contacted the Council about her case and was told to speak to the enforcement agents. I understand at some stage Mrs D paid the enforcement agents.
8. At the start of August 2023, I started my investigation. The Council asked Mrs D for a copy of a Police report to evidence the vehicle theft. It received copies of letters from the Police and Insurers that month.

What should have happened

9. The Council can issue a PCN to the registered owner of a vehicle for parking contraventions. It sends a Notice to Owner to the vehicle owner advising they should pay the penalty charge or make representations explaining why the PCN is not valid and providing any relevant evidence. The Council has a duty to consider representations and respond to the vehicle owner. It should explain how the points raised in the representations have been considered. If no contact is received from the vehicle owner, the Council issues a Charge Certificate and then an Order for Recovery. At that stage it should notify the vehicle owner about their right to make a formal appeal (Statutory Declaration) to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. If no payment is made the case will progress to a debt enforcement stage and be referred to enforcement agents.
10. The statutory guidance for council’s “Considering challenges, representations and appeal” says that councils have the discretion to accept late representations (received 28 days after serving the Notice to Owner). It also states councils have the discretionary power to cancel a PCN at any point of the enforcement process and it encourages councils to “exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably”.

Was there fault by the Council

11. There is fault by the Council in this case.
12. In its response to my enquiries the Council has acknowledged it should have dealt with this case differently. It accepts Officers failed to use discretionary powers to consider the representations received by Mrs D in February 2022. Officers “have discretion to place a case on hold to allow motorists to submit further evidence, but this was not applied” in Mrs D’s case. The Council acknowledges its response to Mrs D in April 2022 “was not sufficient” and it should have asked her to provide evidence from the Police regarding the vehicle theft. The Council says, “more could have been done in April [2022] or at the points [Mrs D] called to discuss matters in June 2023”.
13. The Council now agrees to cancel both PCNs and reimburse the payment Mrs D made. In addition, the Council offers to pay Mrs D £300 for the unnecessary time and trouble she incurred pursuing her case.

Did the fault cause an injustice

14. Mrs D was not afforded a reasonable level of service by the Council and had to pursue her case to the Ombudsman. She was caused undue time and trouble seeking to resolve her case.

Back to top

Agreed action

15. I welcome the Council’s acknowledgement of the fault in this case. Its offer to cancel the PCNs, reimburse the money Mrs D paid the enforcement agents and pay her £300 for time and trouble is a fair outcome and in line with that I would have requested.
16. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have upheld the complaint and closed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman