Summary: Mr B complains the Council refused to consider his informal representations against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). There was fault in the Council’s failure to explain why it rejected Mr B’s informal representations. The Council has agreed to cancel the PCN and refund the money paid.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council refused to consider his informal representations against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

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

Back to top

What I found

The legal background

5. Anyone may make an informal challenge against a PCN before the Council has served a Notice to Owner. Once a Notice to Owner has been served, the owner may make formal representations to the Council. If the formal representations are rejected the owner may then appeal against the penalty charge notice to an independent adjudicator.
6. The situation where a motorist pays a PCN and makes an informal challenge is not specifically covered in the legislation or in the Secretary of State’s ‘Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions’. The only formal guidance which covers the point is London Councils’ ‘Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement’ which states (Paragraph G 16) that where members of the public submit a payment with a letter challenging the PCN and seeking redress, the authority should always consider the challenge.
7. Councils within Greater London must continue to follow London Councils’ Code of Practice; this means it should consider a motorist’s challenge as if they had not paid the PCN. If the Council then finds no grounds to cancel the PCN, it will write explaining why and accept the payment already made in settlement of the case. The Council may also give the motorist the option to ask for a refund of their payment and request a notice to owner so they can make formal representations and appeal if necessary.
8. We issued a focus report in February 2017 Fairer Fines – Ensuring good practice in the management of parking and traffic penalties.

What happened

9. Mr B received a PCN which was for a moving traffic offence. He paid at the reduced rate and also made representations. The Council replied saying there was no provision to pay and to continue to dispute the ticket.
10. Mr B replied referring the Council to our focus report. The Council said it could refund the sum paid and issue a notice to owner which would mean that Mr B could make formal representations. The Council did not provide any response on the explanation and reasons Mr B had provided about the alleged offence.
11. In responding to the complaint the Council said it has instructed officers to:
• fully investigate the customer’s challenge rather than simply advising that the case was closed as payment had been made;
• Give a full explanation as to why the customer’s challenge is not being accepted, and if they wish to contest the matter further to let us know within 14 days of the date of our letter so that payment can be refunded to enable a Notice to Owner to be sent to enable them to make a formal Representation, if no response is received payment will be accepted in settlement of the charge and the case will be closed. If their formal Representation is rejected the customer can then make an Appeal to the Independent Adjudicator; and,
• all officers have been provided and reminded of the Ombudsman’s ‘Fairer fines’ Focus Report to ensure the requirements of the guidance are met.

Analysis

12. The directions the Council has given to officers is in accordance with our guidance and the code of practice. But it is not what it did when dealing with Mr B. The rejection of his representations provided no explanation of why the Council rejected them. The Council’s further letter offering to refund the payment made and issue a notice to owner would not have enabled Mr B to pay at the reduced rate.
13. I note the PCN advises motorists that if they write within 14 days, beginning with the date on which the Penalty Charge Notice was served, and the Council does do not accept the representation, it will give them the opportunity to pay at the reduced rate. This is provided the payment is made within 14 days of the date of the Council’s response. So this is making it clear to motorists that they have chance to make informal representations without losing the option to pay at the reduced rate. But, nevertheless, the Council did not show how it had considered Mr B’s representations and that is not in accordance with good practice and is fault.

Agreed action

14. The Council has agreed to cancel the PCN and refund the money Mr B paid. It should do this within a month of the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

15. There was fault in the Council’s failure to explain why it rejected Mr B’s informal representations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman