Summary: The Council was not at fault in processing a penalty charge notice it issued to Ms X. However, it was at fault in not telling Ms X about the Traffic Enforcement Centre when she got in touch after paying the penalty charge following contact from bailiffs. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X for any inconvenience this had caused her.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council failed to properly consider and respond to her circumstances and concerns after she paid a penalty charge. Ms X also says the Council ignored her correspondence and, when it did reply, was unhelpful. Ms X wants the Council to refund her penalty charge payment of £513 and pay compensation to put right the financial loss and stress caused by its actions.

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. 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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal or go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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 have:

• considered Ms X’s written complaint and supporting papers;
• talked to Ms X about the complaint;
• asked for and considered the Council’s comments and supporting papers about the complaint;
• shared the Council’s comments and supporting papers with Ms X; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Ms X and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

7. Councils have powers to issue penalty charge notices (PCNs) to people if they do not comply with parking and moving traffic rules. After issuing a PCN, the law sets out further steps councils must take to recover the penalty charge. These steps also give people opportunities to challenge the PCN, including to an independent Tribunal. As a PCN passes along the legal steps, the amount payable increases. And, the legal steps may end with a council registering the charge as a debt with the court known as the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). If the debt remains unpaid, councils may then ask enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover the debt. Bailiffs will also add their recovery charges to the debt.
8. The law says the ‘keeper’ of a car must immediately tell the DVLA of any change of name or address and return their car registration document. The DVLA will then change its records and send the ‘keeper’ an updated registration document. Councils will contact the DVLA for information about the registered keeper of cars they find not complying with parking and moving traffic rules. Councils will send formal notices and correspondence about PCNs to the address provided by the DVLA for the named registered keeper of the car.
9. If someone only finds out about a PCN after the TEC has registered the charge as a debt, they may apply to the TEC to set aside the registration. A successful application may mean the PCN is cancelled. Councils may then restart the legal steps. If an application is not successful, people may apply to a District Judge to review the TEC’s decision.

What happened

10. Ms X moved home but, with the owner’s consent, left some of her belongings in the property (‘the Property’). About four or five months later, Ms X says she told the DVLA of her new address and returned her registration document.
11. About five months after Ms X moved, the Council wanted to issue a PCN for a car stopped in box junction, which went against traffic rules. The Council contacted the DVLA for the address of the registered keeper of the car. The DVLA gave the Council the address it held for Ms X, whom its records showed was the registered keeper. The address provided was for the Property. The Council then issued a PCN to Ms X using the address provided by the DVLA. In the months that followed, not hearing from Ms X, the Council completed the necessary the legal steps to recover the charge, using the DVLA supplied address.
12. Meanwhile, about eight months after moving home and three/four months after returning her registration document, Ms X contacted the DVLA. The DVLA apologised as it had received but mislaid Ms X’s application to change her address. The DVLA sent Ms X a new form and asked her to return it so it could update its records to show her new address. Ms X says she did not receive the DVLA’s letter or form.
13. About four months after Ms X had chased the DLVA, the Council asked bailiffs to recover the PCN debt, which it had now registered with the TEC. It was about a year since Ms X had moved home and seven months since the Council issued the PCN. The bailiffs contacted the DVLA to check the address of the registered keeper of the car linked to the PCN: the DVLA again gave the address for the Property.
14. Ms X says the owner of the Property then asked her to remove her belongings ready for the sale of the Property. The bailiffs made a visit to the Property. That same day, Ms X was also at the Property. Also on that same day, Ms X paid the debt, which was now £513, including the bailiffs’ charges.
15. Ms X then contacted both the DVLA and the Council. In contacting the Council, Ms X said she had moved home before it issued the PCN, which she knew nothing about before contact with the bailiffs. Ms X explained her car registration document was missing and she was still waiting to hear from the DVLA. Ms X said she had no issue paying the original penalty charge, but objected to paying £513. In later correspondence, Ms X told both the Council and the DVLA that she had taken appropriate action and should not have to pay the £513. Ms X expressed dissatisfaction and frustration at the Council and DVLA each referring her to the other and neither accepting responsibility for what had happened.
16. The DVLA said it had not heard from Ms X since sending her new forms to complete and return five months earlier. The DVLA sent Ms X another form to complete and return. And, in the final response for the DVLA, an Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA) said the DVLA had no evidence of receiving Ms X’s registration document. The DVLA had therefore wrongly told Ms X it had received, but then lost, her application. On balance, the ICA concluded Ms X had sent her registration document to the DVLA, with her car licence (which the DVLA had updated and returned to her). The ICA recommended the DVLA make a ‘consolatory payment’ of £250 to Ms X for losing her document and giving her wrong information. The ICA did not find the DVLA responsible for refunding the £513 charge as it had not collected this money from Ms X. The ICA signposted Ms X to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman if she wanted to continue with her complaint against the DVLA.
17. The Council’s position, in summary, was:

• it had acted correctly in getting the address of the registered keeper of the car from the DVLA and had properly used that address to recover the charge;
• it would not return her £513 as it had done nothing wrong and was not responsible for losing her application to update her address;
• Ms X should continue to pursue the DVLA as it had admitted losing her application to update her address; and
• the legal time for challenging the PCN had ended, the debt was paid and its case closed so “the only option would be for [Ms X] to take legal advice on the matter.”

Consideration

The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction

18. Ms X says she did not know about the PCN before her contact with the bailiffs. She therefore lost her chance to pay the original charge. Ms X says she accepts she made an error in stopping in the box junction and so would pay the original charge. It is the significant £513 payment Ms X objects to and for which she seeks a refund.
19. We do not normally investigate complaints like that made by Ms X. This is because people may apply to the TEC if they only find out about a PCN when contacted by enforcement agents. So, the restriction set out at paragraph 4 of this statement applies. As Parliament has provided a specific procedure for recovering and challenging PCNs, which includes making a statutory declaration to the TEC, we usually consider it reasonable for people to use that procedure.
20. When we first considered Ms X’s complaint, we asked the Council if it had told her about the TEC. The Council said, as the debt was paid, the case was no longer with the TEC. The Council also said Ms X had not asked it about the TEC during their correspondence. As the Council had not told Ms X about the TEC; and Ms X said the Council was not considering her correspondence with the DVLA, we exercised our discretion to investigate (see paragraph 4 of this statement).

The PCN

21. In considering the complaint, I find the Council acted correctly in asking the DVLA for information about the registered keeper of the car it found breaking traffic rules. And, having received that information from the DVLA, the Council was correct to use the address supplied by the DVLA in seeking payment of the PCN. I therefore do not find that fault by the Council was the cause of Ms X finding bailiffs asking that she pay £513 (see paragraph 2 of this statement).
22. However, in the correspondence that followed between Ms X and the Council, I find the Council did fall below acceptable administrative standards. The Council did not tell Ms X about the TEC when she got in touch. Rather, the Council said Ms X’s only option was to seek independent legal advice. In responding to the Ombudsman, the Council continued to say Ms X needed to take independent legal advice. The Council explained it could not tell Ms X about the TEC as it could not give legal advice and was an interested party in the recovery of the PCN. The Council said if Ms X had taken legal advice as it suggested, she would have been told about making an out of time application to the TEC.
23. The Council’s position is unhelpful and unsustainable. The Council could, and should, have told Ms X about the TEC: that is signposting. The Council is not telling Ms X what to do and or if she may be successful in contacting the TEC. Rather, the Council is letting Ms X know the TEC exists and has a role in dealing with PCN disputes that arise at a late stage in the recovery procedure. I find the Council at fault in failing to quickly signpost Ms X to publicly available information about the TEC.
24. We told Ms X about the TEC at the start of our investigation. Ms X said she wanted to have the Council’s response to her Ombudsman complaint before deciding whether to apply to the TEC. That is Ms X’s choice.
25. The Council now says, once a case passes to bailiffs, the only legal option for someone wishing to challenge a PCN is an ‘out of time’ application to the TEC. The application would be ‘out of time’ because more 21 days has passed since the Council registered Ms X’s PCN debt with the TEC. The TEC can accept late applications. And, a successful application may result in the TEC asking the Council to refund Ms X’s payment and reinstate her right to pay at the original rate. This would provide Ms X with the outcome she wants. If the TEC does not accept Ms X’s late application she could ask a District Judge at her local county court to review the TEC’s decision.
26. I find it would be reasonable for Ms X to make a late application to the TEC and, if necessary, for her to put the matter before a District Judge.

Agreed action

27. The Council was at fault in not signposting Ms X to the TEC. The Council agreed to send, within 20 working days of this statement, a written apology to Ms X for any inconvenience this failure may have caused her.
28. The Council also agreed to send, within 20 working days of this statement, its officers a written reminder to signpost people to the TEC for information about making a late challenge to a PCN.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I completed my investigation on the Council agreeing the recommendations at paragraphs 27 and 28.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman