Summary: The Council was at fault in how it dealt with penalty charge notices issued to Mr X as a result of fraud. The Council requested duplicate information from Mr X causing frustration and anxiety. The Council also failed to meet its duty under the Equality Act to make a reasonable adjustment due to Mr X’s learning difficulties and deal with his complaint by phone rather than in writing. A suitable remedy is agreed for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to take action to cancel penalty charge notices issued to him even though he reported the matter to the police and provided evidence of this. He also complains the council failed to make reasonable adjustments, as required by the Equality Act, and repeatedly insisted he provide information in writing even after explaining he had learning difficulties.
2. Mr X says he experienced frustration, distress and was anxious that enforcement action would be taken against him.

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 an injustice, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X received contact from enforcement agents about a penalty charge notice (PCN) in respect of a driving issue. Mr X says that the vehicle stated on the PCN was not his and he was not in the area at the time stated.
7. Mr X contacted the Council who told him that it received information from a car hire company that it was Mr X using the vehicle at the time of the incident. Mr X also found out that that there was more than one PCN registered against him.
8. Mr X made a police report and got a crime reference number. He then contacted the Council again and asked it to cancel the PCNs. Mr X says the council officer he spoke to was very rude and said Mr X needed to put the matter in writing. Mr X has learning difficulties and is unable to deal with matters in writing even though he explained this, he was told it had to be in writing.
9. Mr X called the Council’s contact centre to make a complaint. He says the officer he spoke to at this point was very helpful and understanding of his learning difficulties and took his complaint over the telephone.
10. The Council says it wrote to Mr X on 20 May 2022 with a stage one complaint response but is unsure if Mr X actually received the email due to IT issues. Mr X says he never received this letter.
11. The Council’s response said that after making additional enquiries and analysing the information it held, it had recalled the warrants from the enforcement agents and instructed them to stop pursuing Mr X. It agreed that the level of customer service received from a member of staff was not satisfactory and it would be arranging further training to improve customer service skills. It apologised to Mr X.
12. Mr X contacted the Ombudsman due to the lack of response to his complaint. We made enquiries and then referred Mr X back to the Council for his complaint to complete the complaints process.
13. Mr X then had email contact with a manager regarding his stage two complaint. In an email dated 27 June, she asked Mr X to confirm address and driving licence details. Mr X responded asking the Council to call him to discuss the matter. He explained he had learning difficulties and did not have the capacity to write and respond to email.
14. The Manager replied saying that as this was a stage two complaint it had to be done in writing. She asked if Mr X could just confirm or deny the details she had provided and then she could carry out a full investigation. She said the Council must confirm these details before passing the matter to the police and that was why it had to be in writing.
15. Mr X responded saying he had informed the Council of his disability previously and asked the Council to clarify if his disability prevented the Council from proceeding with his complaint. The Council replied saying that there were now other PCNs in his name and that in order to investigate the Council needed him to confirm the details in writing. The Manager said she understood Mr X had learning difficulties but she must have his confirmation in writing before she could proceed. She said that if Mr X just sent an email stating yes or no then she could carry on with the stage two complaint.
16. The Manager went on to say that due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) she was unable to take anything over the phone. She did however apologise for the length of time taken to respond to Mr X, acknowledging that IT issues meant the stage one response had not actually been sent to Mr X.
17. Frustrated that the Council would not speak to him, Mr X replied by email saying “yes I would like my complaint to be investigated at stage two and please inform the police fraud has been committed”.
18. The Council sent the stage two response to Mr X on 6 July 2022. It again apologised for delays in dealing with his complaint. It said that as he had confirmed the details provided on the PCNs were his details, he would need to take this information to his local police station and log a file with them. It said Mr X should then provide a copy of the police report to it and it would then remove and fraudulent PCNs.
19. Frustrated by the Council’s request to take action and provide information he had already provided, as well as not meeting his disability requirements, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

20. The information provided shows that Mr X contacted the Council as soon as he was aware of the fraudulent PCNs. He made a police report and provided evidence of this to the Council at some point in May 2022. This is confirmed by the stage one complaint response which the Council says was originally written in May 2022. The Council confirmed at that point it has withdrawn the warrants and instructed the enforcement agents to stop pursuing Mr X.
21. It is therefore not clear to me why the Council then requested Mr X to provide this information again when dealing with his complaint at stage two. The failure to realise Mr X had already provided information from the police and requesting he provide it again was fault. This caused frustration and distress as well as anxiety that the enforcement agents may contact him.
22. I am pleased to note this part of Mr X’s complaint has now been resolved with the Council accepting Mr X is not liable for any of the PCNs. All enforcement action against Mr X has been withdrawn.
23. Mr X also complains about the Council’s insistence he do things in writing even though he explained he had learning difficulties and wanted to speak on the telephone. There is a duty on local authorities under the Equality Act 2010 to make changes or adjustments to ensure access for disabled people. The Act only requires the Council to make adjustments that it considers reasonable. This means it may have to change its normal practice or procedure to meet the needs of the individual.
24. In this case, Mr X explained he had learning difficulties and so wanted to make initial contact by telephone so that he could ensure he understood everything properly. I note that there when making his stage one complaint, Mr X was able to do this in his preferred manner, by phone, and he has complimented this member of staff for understanding his needs.
25. However, there were other instances when a reasonable adjustment to meet Mr X’s needs were not met. In particular, the insistence of the Manager dealing with the stage two complaint that it had to be in writing showed no understanding of Mr X’s needs or the Council’s duty to make reasonable adjustments. In response to my enquiries on this complaint, the Council has not provided any evidence to support the position that the complaint had to be in writing for GDPR requirements. It accepts it was at fault for insisting the complaint had to be made in writing.
26. I consider the Council was more focussed on process and procedure when dealing with Mr X and failed to consider his needs and request for a reasonable adjustment, causing him distress and anxiety.
27. The faults in this case also put Mr X to avoidable time and trouble in having to pursue the matter both at stage two of the complaints process and to the Ombudsman when it appears the matter had been satisfactorily resolved in May 2022 at stage one.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. To remedy the injustice cause to Mr X as a result of the fault identified in this case the Council, within one month of my final decision, will:
• Make a written apology to Mr X;
• Pay Mr X £250 to recognise his distress, anxiety and time and trouble in pursuing this complaint; and
• Remind staff of the duty under the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman