Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not accept representations he made about a Penalty Charge Notice. He stated the Council wrongly continued to take action against him although he had sold his vehicle before the alleged offence was committed. We found there was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged moving traffic offence. He complains that he told the Council he had sold his vehicle the day before the offence was committed on several occasions, but the Council did not acknowledge his correspondence and it continued with action against him.
2. Mr X complained that the Council did not accept telephone challenges, he struggled to access the postal service at the time and the website did not allow him to state he was no longer the owner. He complains the matter is stressful.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. We generally expect people to use their right of appeal to challenge a PCN. In Mr X’s case we decided to investigate Mr X’s complaint to consider if the appropriate process was followed concerning representations he made and to ensure he had the appropriate appeal rights.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided. I asked the Council for information and I considered its response to the complaint.
8. Mr 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

Penalty Charge Notices (PCN)

9. Councils have powers to issue penalty charge notices (PCNs) to people if they do not follow parking and moving traffic rules. This includes driving in bus lanes.
10. The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 state that the recipient of a PCN may make representations against the enforcement of the notice. It states these must be in the form determined by the enforcement authority (the council).
11. The Council requires representations to be made on PCNs either in writing or online, via its website. There are various grounds for making representations. These are set out Para 5(4) of the regulations. These include that the recipient had ceased to be the owner of the vehicle before the alleged contravention occurred.
12. If a PCN is not paid, or representations have not been received within 28 days of the PCN being served, the Council can issue a charge certificate. This will increase the charge by 50%. At this point representations may no longer be considered.
13. If the PCN remains unpaid 14 days after receipt of a Charge Certificate, the authority can register the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre at the Northampton County Court and consider recovery action.

Traffic and Parking Enforcement Centre (TEC)

14. Where a Council has registered an unpaid PCN as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), the owner of the vehicle has the right to challenge this. This is done by making a witness statement. The TEC considers the statement and it can decide to take the process back to an earlier stage. This does not result in cancellation of the PCN but removes the basis for any additional costs and reinstates the owner’s right of appeal.

What Happened

15. On 6 March 2023 Mr X’s vehicle was identified as being in a bus lane by an enforcement camera. On 9 March the Council asked the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) for the details of the registered keeper. They provided Mr X’s details the following day.
16. On 13 March 2023 the Council issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to Mr X. It explained the alleged offence. It stated the penalty charge of £70 must be paid within 28 days of the date of service (15 March 2023). If it was paid within 21 days the charge would be reduced to £35.
17. The PCN explained what Mr X should do if he wished to make representations against paying the charge. Notes on how to make representations were set out on the notice. The notes stated representations should either be sent to the Council by post (using a reply slip on the PCN) or entered into the council’s website. Details of each were provided. One of the grounds for making representations was ‘I was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the contravention’.
18. The Council did not receive a response to the PCN, so it issued a Charge Certificate on 17 April 2023. This increased the amount payable to £105. This was payable within 14 days. This could be paid by telephone, post or via a website.
19. On 18 April Mr X’s son called the council. The Council would not discuss the matter with him as he was not the registered keeper of the vehicle.
20. On 1 June the Council sent a reminder letter, stating it was preparing to register the debt at the County Court.
21. In June Mr X called the Council. He stated he had sold the car. The Council explained Mr X’s options but stated it was not obliged to consider representations received outside the appeals process. Mr X wrote to the Council in June reiterating the car had been sold. He stated he considered the procedures for challenging the notice were inadequate as he could not challenge over the telephone and the Council’s website didn’t allow him to state he did not own the car. Mr X also stated, to the best of his knowledge, the new owner had challenged the PCN.
22. The Council responded, stating no evidence had been provided that the car had been sold and nothing had been received in writing other than from Mr X. Several further letters were exchanged between Mr X and the Council. Mr X’s son also called the council again. Evidence was not provided that the car had been sold.
23. On 25 August the Council sent an Order for Recovery, including an additional £9 court registration fee. It stated Mr X either needed to pay the £114 due or file a witness statement to the court.
24. On 16 September Mr X wrote to the Council. He stated he had told the council who the new owner was on two previous occasions. He enclosed a form declaring that the new owner of the vehicle was his son. The form was dated 10 August 2022.
25. On 19 September the Council told Mr X that the DVLA had advised the council that he was the owner at the time the PCN was issued and it was now too late to appeal as an Order for Recovery had been issued.
26. In October a witness statement was submitted by Mr X on the grounds that a) Mr X had made a representation and not received a reply, and b) that he made an appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and had not received a reply.
27. On 12 October the Council told Mr X it had revoked the Order for Recovery and the Charge Certificate following an order from the court. This did not revoke the PCN. The Council noted Mr X’s comments to the court, but it stated it had no record of any representation or appeal being made within the statutory 28 days after the PCN was issued. It stated no evidence of the vehicle sale was provided by Mr X. As no representations were received within the 28 days required, the case had progressed correctly. However, as the court had revoked the Order for Recovery and Charge Certificate, Mr X had the opportunity to pay the PCN at the original rate of £70. It explained how he could do this.
28. As Mr X did not pay the PCN within 14 days, the Council referred the matter to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. It decided the PCN should stand.

Was there fault by the Council

29. The law allows councils to prescribe how representations should be made to challenge Penalty Charge Notices for alleged traffic offences. The Council requires representations to be made either on its website or in the post. In all cases, representations need to be made within 28 days.
30. Mr X received a PCN in March 2023. The notes on the PCN sent to Mr X explained how it could be challenged and set the process out clearly. However, he did not make representations within the 28-day period prescribed (by 12 April 2023).
31. Although Mr X’s son telephoned the council on 18 April, the Council could not discuss the matter with him. In any event, this was outside of the 28-day period Mr X had to make representations. No written representations were made by Mr X until sometime later in June 2023. While I recognise Mr X wrote to and telephoned the Council several times from this point, I found there was no fault in the approach the Council took. By this time, the Council had begun recovery action. As the timescale for making representations had passed, the Council was entitled to continue to pursue the Penalty Charge.
32. When Mr X submitted a late witness statement to the Traffic and Parking Enforcement Centre, the Council complied with the court order to revoke the Charge Certificate and Order for Recovery. This removed the additional charges added. The Council told Mr X this on 12 October and allowed him the opportunity to pay the PCN at the original rate (£70) within 14 days. This was appropriate.
33. I note Mr X commented that he was unable to post a response to the Council within the required 28-day period. I also note his comments that the website did not allow him to make the required appeal. However, the matter has now been to a Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the circumstances. On 11 January 2024 the Tribunal decided the Penalty Charge Notice should stand. It allowed Mr X 28 days from 11 January to pay the charge at the original fee of £70. The Tribunal noted that the Council could continue to take enforcement action if the charge was not paid, which would increase the amount due.

Back to top

Final decision

34. There was no fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman