London Borough of Lambeth (18 016 872)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 08 Oct 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his penalty charge notice including its poor communication. The Council has apologised to Mr X, agreed to pay him £100 for his injustice, and considered the practice issues.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains the Council was not efficient in handling his representation against a penalty charge notice issued for driving in a bus lane. Mr X says the Council did not reply or delayed in replying to correspondence, did not deal properly with all his points, failed to allow him to pay at the discounted rate, and delayed 8 months in refunding a cheque. Mr X says the Council wrongly pursued debt recovery and impinged on his human rights. Mr X says the Council caused him time, trouble and expense. He says it should pay compensation, improve its practice and take steps to deal properly with correspondence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if satisfied with action the Council has taken or agreed to take.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered Mr X’s information, comments and reply to my draft decision statement. I have considered the penalty charge notice information and the Council’s replies to Mr X’s complaint of April and August 2019.

Back to top

What I found

  1. On 14 September 2018 at 11:10 Mr X drove his vehicle in a bus lane. On 17 September the Council sent him a penalty charge notice (PCN) giving him 14 days to pay the discounted rate of £65 or make a representation. On 27 September Mr X posted the Council a representation against the PCN explaining that he did not know the area, was following his satnav and could not easily leave the bus lane. The Council says it did not receive the representation.
  2. On 23 October 2018 the Council sent Mr X an enforcement notice for £130. Mr X replied and sent a copy of his earlier representation with proof of posting. On 15 November the Council rejected Mr X’s representation (with reference to the bus lane signs and his satnav) and gave him the option of paying £130 or appealing to the London Tribunals.
  3. On 26 November Mr X sent the Council a cheque for the discounted sum of £65. Mr X says the Council had not acknowledged that he had made an earlier representation and then sent a copy/proof of it. Mr X then challenged the need for a 24 hour bus lane, suggested the Council had not acted in line with his human rights, and referred to ‘my complaint’.
  4. On 20 December 2018 the Council sent Mr X a charge certificate for £195 and pursued debt recovery. In January it obtained from the Traffic Enforcement Centre an order for recovery of the debt.
  5. On 23 December 2018 Mr X wrote to the Council and stated that his earlier letter was ‘a complaint’. He says the post office told him the letter was diverted to another address. Mr X enclosed a second cheque for £65 in case the first was not received but made it clear he believed he should only pay £65. He suggested to the Council that: ‘things are going wrong with the administration at your end’.
  6. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman due to the lack of replies from the Council. On 25 March we sent the complaint to the Council to deal with as legally premature to this office.
  7. The Council’s complaint replies say:
      1. It acted in accordance with regulations but ‘aspects of the way we handled your challenge has fallen below what we would normally accept’.
      2. ‘I’m disappointed that we didn’t provide you with a further opportunity to pay the discounted amount’ (with reference to proof being provided of the earlier representation).
      3. There might have been delay in replying due to the scanning department moving to Darlington.
      4. It was not clear why Mr X’s challenge was not correctly assigned. One cause could be Mr X misquoting the PCN reference number.
  8. The Council:
      1. Apologised for the time taken to deal with Mr X’s concerns and explained its policy on bus lanes.
      2. Confirmed refund of one cheque of £65 in August.
      3. Stated the Parking Appeal team has been reminded: 1) ‘of the importance of thoroughly investigating and responding to all the points that are raised’ and 2) that where evidence has been supplied that ‘genuine efforts had been made to challenge a case we should consider reoffering the discount sum.’

Analysis

  1. The Council should have resolved this issue in November 2018 by accepting Mr X’s payment of £65. When replying to Mr X’s representation it should have considered its discretion to extend the discount period in line with the comments in the Council’s later complaint reply. On the facts, it would have been unreasonable not to extend the discount period. Delays in communications were not justified given that Mr X always supplied his address, telephone number and email. The following 9 months of communications, debt recovery, and complaints should have been avoided. Mr X’s human rights arguments are not for the Ombudsman to determine.
  2. I consider that Mr X was caused injustice including time and trouble and annoyance (he says communication with the Council ‘is like trying to talk to a steam roller’). There was also avoidable debt recovery although this did not get as far as the enforcement agent. There is no injustice arising from the Council’s 24/7 bus lane policy which Mr X acknowledges was not relevant to the circumstances of his offence.

Agreed Action

  1. I will not consider the complaint further because I am satisfied that the Council has taken or agreed to take appropriate action to remedy the injustice.
      1. The Council has apologised to Mr X.
      2. The Council has given its officers advice on responding to representations including in this type of situation.
      3. The Council has agreed with the Ombudsman that it will pay Mr X £100 to cover his injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his penalty charge notice including its poor communication. The Council has apologised to Mr X, agreed to pay him £100 for his injustice, and considered the practice issues.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings