Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that he did not have an opportunity to pay penalty charge notices at the original discounted rate. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused him injustice. Mr X’s injustice stems from his agreement to reimburse the owner of the vehicles, a hire company, for payment of any penalty charge notices and from his own actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about several penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by the Council. Mr X is not the owner or registered keeper of the vehicle but has been held liable for payment by the owner, a hire company. Mr X is unhappy that he did not have the opportunity to pay several PCNs at the original discounted rate and has instead had to pay the full amount plus an administration fee added by the hire company.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X is not directly liable for any of the PCNs he refers to; liability for these PCNs rests with the hire company as the owner and registered keeper of the vehicles. The hire company has paid the PCNs and passed the cost to Mr X under the terms of its contract, which Mr X agreed to when hiring the vehicles.
6. While Mr X is unhappy neither he nor the hire company had an opportunity to pay the PCNs at the discounted rate this is not the result of any fault by the Council. The law allows the Council to issue PCNs for parking contraventions by fixing them to the windscreen of the vehicle, as it did in this case. Mr X did not see the PCNs because he had finished using the vehicle and the hire company was unaware until the Council issued an official notice to it by post. By this point the opportunity to pay the discounted rate had passed, so the full amount was payable. This is clearly covered on the hire company’s website.
7. The Council’s actions followed the statutory process and the injustice Mr X claims stems from his agreement to reimburse the hire company for any PCNs, rather than any fault or actions of the Council. I appreciate Mr X’s concerns but there was no requirement for the Council to notify him of the PCN directly and no evidence of fault in its demand to the hire company to pay the full amount of the PCN. Had Mr X wished to check to see if there were any PCNs on the vehicles he could have done so; the fact he did not is his choice.
8. It is in any event Mr X’s responsibility to ensure he has parked any vehicles in his control properly and in accordance with his agreement with the hire company, and if he is unhappy about their processes or charges he would need to take the matter up with them.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X any direct or significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman