Summary: Ms B complains about the way the Council has handled refunds of charges associated with enforcement action it had taken for an alleged parking and a moving traffic offence. There was fault by the Council in ensuring the promised refunds were made to Ms B. The Council will make the payment to Ms B of the outstanding sum.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains about the way the Council has handled refunds of charges associated with enforcement action it had taken for an alleged parking and moving traffic offence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’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

6. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Ms B and spoke to her. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Ms B and the Council and considered their comments

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. In 2014 Ms B received a penalty charge notice (PCN1) for a moving traffic offence. The Council proceeded with recovery action to the address provided by the DVLA. There is no record of any action in 2015 but in early 2016 the court accepted a statutory declaration made by Ms B which meant the notice to owner was revoked. This meant the Council had to restart the recovery process which it did. This resulted in the Council passing the case to enforcement agents in May 2016.
8. In February 2016 Ms B received another PCN for a parking contravention. The Council again proceeded with recovery action to the address it had for Ms B from the DVLA. This resulted in it appointing enforcement agents in October 2016. Ms B paid the enforcement agents £1242 in October 2016 being the total due for the two PCNs. Ms B filed two statutory declaration with the courts in October 2016. These were to challenge both PCNs but both were rejected by the court in late 2016.
9. There is no recorded action during 2017. In March 2018 the Council ran a bulk cancellation of warrants that had expired. The payment Ms B had made in October 2016 to the enforcement agents for PCN1 had not been assigned to the case so the PCN was cancelled.
10. In April 2018 the court revoked the order for the second PCN. This meant the Council should refund to Ms B all the costs associated with the recovery action.
11. As Ms B had not had a refund she complained to the Council in September 2018. The Council agreed to refund all the monies paid for PCN1 as it had cancelled it. For PCN2 it said that it would arrange a refund of the enforcement agent fees and £138 but said it would retain £65 being the original charge.
12. The Council didn’t make the refunds because it did not have Ms B’s bank details. Ms B complained about the Council keeping the £65 saying that she understood the court order didn’t revoke the original notice to owner but that it had to issue a new one to give her a new right of appeal and it was wrong to keep a payment for it while that happened.
13. Ms B received the refunds from the Council in December 2018. And in response to her complaint the Council refunded the original £65 and paid a further £25 in recognition of the faults. She received a payment from the enforcement agents of £75 on 1 May 2019 but the refund of the remaining £762 is disputed.

Analysis

14. The events here have been protracted and I do not know what was happening for periods but I do not consider I need to know more to come to a view on the complaint. The key point is the Council has undertaken to refund the sums Ms B paid for the two PCNs. It is not clear when it first asked the enforcement agents to refund the money it had received for the two PCNs. There is a reference to the enforcement agents sending a payment by post in April 2018 to the address provided by the court for Ms B. And that it was reissued in December 2018. Both of these would have been to incorrect addresses for Ms B and I have seen no evidence to show the payments were attempted.
15. In responding to my enquiries the Council has said the enforcement agents had identified the refund had not been cashed and would arrange for a bank transfer. A payment was made on 1 May 2019 but that was only for £75. Then the Council said the enforcement agent had refunded £762 to the original credit card on 16 November 2018. No evidence in support has been provided. Moreover it was two years since the original payment was made it could well be that the card has expired and Ms B says she has not had the payment.
16. There was unacceptable delay by the Council in ensuring that Ms B received the refund she had been promised from the enforcement agents who acting on behalf of the Council. She has still not received the payment of over £750 which the Council agreed to refund. The Council should now make the payment itself to Ms B and resolve the issue with the enforcement agents.
17. Where there has been delay in refunding money I would normally consider that some further small payment would be due. But in deciding whether that is appropriate I need to consider the whole circumstances. Ms B has said the court upheld her applications to challenge both PCNs. The information the Council has provided shows that only the challenge in respect of PCN2 was successful. The reason why the Council agreed to refund on PCN1 was because of its error in cancelling the PCN. So, as Ms B is only getting the refund because of an error by the Council, I do not consider that any further remedy is necessary.

Agreed action

18. The Council will pay Ms B £762 within one month of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

19. There was fault by the Council in ensuring the promised refunds were made to Ms B. The Council will make the payment to Ms B of the outstanding sum.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman