Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s issuing and escalation of penalty charge notices (PCNs). The evidence suggests the Council reached its decision properly, so investigation would be unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council repeatedly sent all PCN correspondence to her old address. This meant there had been court judgments and enforcement agents (EAs) were involved before Miss X knew the Council was pursuing the matter. This caused distress to Miss X and her daughter. Miss X states the EAs wrongfully categorized her as high-earning and non-vulnerable so want her to pay in higher instalments than she says she can afford.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and a copy of complaint correspondence from the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X complains Council sent PCN correspondence to her old address. As required by law, the Council sent the PCNs and Notice to Owner (NTO) to the address held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). Miss X had not updated her address with the DVLA. So, it was not the Council’s fault she did not receive the correspondence.
9. Miss X requested copies of the correspondence. The Council sent this on 5 July 2024. Miss X says she had repeatedly asked for copies before then. However, as the Council has now sent these, it would be a disproportionate use of our resources to pursue this point as we cannot achieve substantively more on this.
10. Miss X says she is vulnerable so she argues the Council, not the EA, should deal with her about the debt. As requested by the Council, the EA assessed Miss X’s vulnerability and concluded she did not meet the threshold for the EA to return the debt to the Council. It is unlikely any investigation of the details of that consideration would find fault.
11. Miss X requested the Council to cancel the PCNs given the circumstances at the time they were incurred. The Council has the discretion to cancel, however, given the information it had, and that Miss X accepted liability by making a payment arrangement, the Council said it saw no reason to cancel. I can appreciate the decision is unwelcome by Miss X, but the decision seems properly made. Therefore, we cannot criticise the decision, as paragraph 3 explained.
12. The Council told Miss X she could make an out-of-time witness statement to the court that issued the judgments, explaining she had not received the earlier correspondence. If the court accepts a late witness statement, it might return the case to an earlier stage, removing the court costs and other additional costs, and issue new NTOs that would give Miss X the right to appeal against the PCNs. Applying to the court is a way of Miss X challenging the escalation of the PCNs. Therefore, the restriction in paragraph 4 applies. Making a late witness statement is relatively straightforward. If the court accepts the statement, it can make a binding order. So, it is reasonable to expect Miss X to use this right to deal with the consequences of her not having received the original correspondence.
13. Miss X states the EAs wrongly said she was a higher earner, so did not agree a lower instalment arrangement. While this was one of several points Miss X put to the EAs, I do not consider the Council has had a reasonable opportunity to deal with this point in all the circumstances. So, the restriction in paragraph 5 applies. Miss X should put this point to the Council in its complaint procedure first.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there was no fault in the Council sending the correspondence to the address DVLA supplied. We cannot achieve more on the Council’s delay sending copies of the correspondence. Investigation is unlikely to find fault in the Council’s consideration of vulnerability. The Council properly reached its decision not to cancel the PCNs. Miss X could reasonably give a late witness statement to the court about not having received the correspondence in time. Miss X should complete the Council’s complaint procedure on the point about the level of instalment repayments before we will consider it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman