Summary: Mr D complains about a penalty charge notice he received for a moving traffic offence during road closures at a cycling event. The Ombudsman has found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to refund Mr D the cost of the penalty charge and fees.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) he received for a moving traffic offence during road closures at a cycling event. He says he has had to pay unnecessary fees and charges.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)
4. London Tribunals is a statutory tribunal which considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Mr D about his complaint and considered the information he sent and the Council’s response to our enquiries.
6. I gave Mr D and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 permits councils in Greater London to undertake civil enforcement of moving traffic contraventions. They usually do this by serving a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) by post to the person registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) as the keeper of the vehicle involved in the alleged contravention.
8. If the keeper wants to challenge the PCN they can make written representations to the council involved. There is a right of appeal against a PCN to London Tribunals. Councils are obliged to withdraw the PCN if a case is made on one of the statutory grounds of appeal and is accepted. A council may also withdraw the PCN at its discretion on other grounds.
9. If the keeper does not pay within 28 days, the council may issue the keeper a charge certificate and register the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court if the keeper fails to pay. The TEC may then issue an order for recovery of unpaid penalty charges. If the TEC grants a warrant of control, the council may pass the warrant to an enforcement agency to recover the debt.
10. At this stage, the keeper can pay the outstanding amount or submit a statutory declaration to the TEC if they think they have grounds to challenge the PCN. One of the grounds is that the keeper did not receive the PCN.
11. Although the keeper should make a statutory declaration within 21 days of the order of recovery, the TEC has discretion to accept an application made outside this time limit. If the TEC accepts the statement, the Council will issue another PCN and the keeper will again have a right of appeal to London Tribunals. If the TEC does not accept the late statutory declaration, the keeper may ask a District Judge at the local county court to review the TEC's decision.

What happened

12. In August 2017, the Council issued a PCN by post to Mr D for a moving traffic offence. Mr D did not receive the PCN because he had moved and not informed the DVLA of his new address.
13. The Council then issued a charge certificate and registered the debt with the TEC. In May 2018 the TEC granted a warrant, which the Council passed to an enforcement agent for collection of the debt.
14. Mr D says he only became aware of the PCN when bailiffs threatened to take his car in September 2018. Mr D contacted the Council, giving his new address. The automated online response explained it was too late to make formal representations about the PCN.
15. The Council wrote to Mr D at his old address on 20 September 2018. The letter said as the court had authorised a Warrant of Control and the matter was with the enforcement agent the Council was unable to intervene.
16. In December 2018 Mr D paid the enforcement agent. He told me had to borrow money to do so. He complained to the Council on 12 December 2018 that the PCN had been unfair due to the road closures and unclear signage. The complaint was not logged under the Council’s corporate complaint procedure as it related to a PCN.
17. An officer called Mr D. The Council’s record says the officer advised that as payment had been made the case would be closed and his complaint had been logged. Mr D disputes this. He says he was given the impression his case would be looked into and his money refunded.
18. In January 2019 Mr D complained again as he had not received a response. The Council wrote to Mr D at his new address on 10 January 2019. The letter said Mr D’s case had been closed and had not been considered within the Council’s own corporate complaints process. The Council had followed the statutory process for PCN case reviews and would not review the PCN further.
19. Mr D says he did not receive this letter. He chased the Council in February 2019 and complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

20. As Mr D did not receive the PCN he had grounds to appeal it to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC).
21. However, whilst the Council followed the correct PCN enforcement process, it did not inform Mr D of his right to submit an out-of-time witness statement to the TEC when he contacted the Council in September 2018. This was fault. It then sent its letter to his old address, which was further fault.
22. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it was likely the PCN would have been cancelled if Mr D had made formal representations at the time. It therefore offered to fully refund Mr D for the PCN amount and for the enforcement agents to also refund the enforcement fees.
23. I welcome the Council’s offer as a proportionate and suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Agreed action

24. Within a month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to refund the PCN amount to Mr D and ensure the enforcement agent refunds their fees.

Back to top

Final decision

25. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman