Summary: Ms D complains the Council incorrectly pursued her for payment of a PCN in 2017. The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault because the Council did not follow procedures when assessing whether a Debt Recovery Order applied to the case. The Council also mishandled formal complaints. The injustice to Ms D is limited. The Ombudsman has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council agrees to apologise.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council failed to take account of Debt Recovery Order (DRO) she had in place in 2017 which meant she did not have to pay a PCN she incurred. She says the Council incorrectly pursued her for the PCN. She also refers to the actions of the Police and DVLA.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have looked at the actions of the Council. I explain below why I have not considered the other parts of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the Police or DVLA. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, 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’.
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 the information provided by Ms D. I asked the Council questions and carefully examined its response.
7. I have written to Ms D and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. In February 2017 the Council issued a PCN to Ms D as the owner of a vehicle that was parked illegally. On 10 May the Council received a letter from the Insolvency Service stating Ms D had a DRO in place. On 15 June the Council wrote back to the Insolvency Service stating it was enforcing the PCN because it had been correctly issued and Ms D remained liable. It explained if Ms D did not pay the PCN the Council would follow the enforcement process and issue a Notice to Owner allowing her the chance to make Representations contesting the PCN.
9. No contact was received from Ms D. In July the Council sent a Notice to Owner to her home address. It subsequently issued a Charge Certificate and then an Order for Recovery. No response was made by Ms D. the Council obtained a Warrant for Recovery in November and passed the case to an Enforcement Agent. That month Ms D told the Enforcement Agent she would supply a copy of the DRO. The case was put on hold for 28 days but Ms D did not send any documentation. In December enforcement action proceeded. Ms D said she had sold the car to a friend (Mr X). In January 2018 Mr X paid the PCN and fees. The enforcement case was closed. Ms D subsequently provided a copy of the DRO to the Enforcement Agents.
10. In June 2018 Mr P wrote to the Council on behalf of Ms D. He complained the Council had not taken account of the DRO and should not have pursued payment of the PCN. I understand Mr P chased up the Council in September and received a response in October. The Council said one of the conditions of a DRO is that assets of £1000 plus are not held by the debtor. In this case Ms D’s car was worth over £1000 and so the DRO did not apply. The Council had told the Insolvency Service in June 2017 “stating...the vehicle remained an asset of the debtor and had a value over £1000 thus precluding her from coverage of the DRO”. It also said Ms D had failed to contest the PCN or engage with the Council. It did not uphold the complaint because the DRO had been considered and the PCN correctly progressed. It gave details on how to ask for a, stage two, escalated complaint.
11. In January 2019 Mr P asked the Council to escalate his complaint. The Council has told the Ombudsman there was an administrative error which meant this request was not dealt with.
12. The Council tells me that in December 2019 it checked the value of Ms D’s former vehicle and it was worth over £1000.

What should have happened

13. In cases where the Council has issued a PCN and is subsequently notified the vehicle owner has a DRO the matter should be considered by the Parking Investigation Team. It will make checks to see if the DRO is applicable. If a vehicle is worth over £1000 it is not covered by the DRO and so can be subject to the PCN enforcement process. The Council must value the vehicle in question as part of its consideration of the case. This can be done via online sales websites and checking the price of similar models of the same age. The information from those checks should be attached to the case file. The Council should inform the vehicle owner about its decision.

Was there fault by the Council

14. There is evidence of fault by the Council.
15. The Council had a duty to check the value of Ms D’s vehicle in June 2017 once it was notified about the DRO. It failed to do so. There is no evidence of any such checks being made at the time. In addition the Council incorrectly told Mr P in its complaints response that it had done the check and notified Ms D, via the Insolvency Service, in June 2017 that because her vehicle was worth more than £1000 the DRO did not apply. The letter from the Council to the Insolvency Service makes absolutely no reference to this. It only says Ms D is eligible for the PCN. This reinforces my view the Council failed to follow the correct process for a DRO in 2017.
16. The Council says it subsequently checked the vehicle’s value in December 2019 and it was worth over £1000. It has not shown me how it found this data. In any event this is a retrospective action which does not mitigate against the absence of adhering to procedures in 2017.
17. I therefore find the Council failed to follow the correct process in 2017 regarding its consideration of the DRO. That said, I also recognise that Ms D failed to engage in the enforcement process at any point until the Enforcement Agents contacted her. Even then she failed to supply documentation until after the debt had been paid by another person and the case closed.
18. The Council also delayed responding to the complaint lodged in 2018 by Mr P, acting on behalf of Ms D. When it did respond it gave incorrect information about what the Council told the Insolvency Service. The Council then failed to reply to Mr P’s request for a stage two complaint in January 2019.

Did the fault cause an injustice

19. I do not see Ms D was caused a significant injustice in respect of the DRO and valuation of the vehicle. That is because she did not pay the PCN and other costs, these were paid by the new owner of the vehicle Mr X. I also see no basis to warrant a payment for distress given Ms D failed to interact with the Council for the majority of the enforcement process.
20. Ms D, via her Representative, was subject to delays in receiving a reply to her complaint in 2018 and 2019. The Council should have dealt with matters better and ensured it gave correct information in its response.

Agreed action

21. In order to remedy the poor handling of Ms D’s complaint the Council has agreed to my recommendations. It will send Ms D a letter of apology and explain to the Ombudsman what steps have been taken to ensure better handling of complaints. Those actions should be completed within the next four weeks.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

23. Ms D refers to the Police and DVLA. Both organisations fall outside the Ombudsman’s remit and are not subject to investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman