Summary: Mr C says the Council provided no evidence that he was liable for a parking ticket. He says the Council’s website was not working when he tried to use it. He says the chief executive has ignored his letters. He says this has caused him the injustice of an unproven parking ticket. The Council was not at fault. Mr C did not provide evidence to show he was not liable. The Council’s responded to Mr C’s complaints satisfactorily.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr C, says the Council is at fault for:
1. Failing to prove that he is liable to pay a penalty charge notice issued to his vehicle and for various failures connected to the issue of that PCN;
2. Failing to deal with his complaints about the matter properly; and
3. He also questions the Council’s authority to issue PCNs to him.
4. He also claims the Council was attempting to intimidate him as he was a witness in a criminal case.
2. He says this caused him injustice because he should not have to pay the penalty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 read analysis of the case placed on the file by colleagues and the material presented by Mr C. I wrote an enquiry letter to the Council and considered the Council response. I applied the relevant law and guidance and made my decision.
5. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and invited their comments. I considered Mr C’s many comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

Penalty charge procedure

6. The Traffic Management Act 2004 governs the procedure which must be followed by councils issuing penalty charge notices (PCNs).

London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement

7. London councils publish a code of practice on civil parking enforcement which sets out how they will enforce their civil parking restrictions.
8. The Code states that civil enforcement officers, (‘CEOs’) will enforce parking regulations by serving PCNs where vehicles are parked in contravention of restrictions and record all their activities in a hand-held computer or pocketbook.
9. The Code says A PCN is ‘the prima facie evidence of the parking contravention’. The DEO must affix the PCN to the windscreen of the vehicle in question in a weatherproof envelope.
10. A CEO’s handheld computer will transmit details of a PCN electronically to a database which prevents changes in the data. If the PCN is handwritten, the CEO must make two copies and place one on the vehicle and keep the other.
11. The Code recommends that CEOs carry handheld cameras to provide additional evidence of a contravention.
12. The PCN must include specified information including the date of issue, the vehicle’s registration number, the reason for issuing the PCN and the amount of the charge. It must also explain that the penalty must be paid within 28 days and that, if it is paid within 14 days, the recipient can pay a discounted charge.
13. It will also state that, where the owner does not pay within 14 days, the Council will send a ‘Notice to Owner’ to the registered keeper. On receipt of the NTO, the keeper can appeal the PCN but must do so in the format prescribed.
14. The owner has 21 days to appeal and must do so using the attached form and providing evidence including a witness statement. The NTO letter will include a form with a list of grounds of appeal. Appellants must tick one box only. These are the only possible grounds of appeal for a PCN. They are that:
• The alleged parking contravention did not occur;
• The person receiving the NTO has never owned the vehicle
• The person had either ceased to own the vehicle before the contravention occurred or had acquired it afterwards;
• Someone else was driving the vehicle at the time;
• The penalty charge was greater that it should have been;
• The enforcement authority has committed ‘a procedural impropriety’
• The traffic order allegedly contravened is invalid; or
• The recipient has already paid the penalty in full.
15. If the owner does not respond within 21 days, the Council will register the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. The TEC will issue an order for recovery and an accompanying witness statement to the owner within 15 days.
16. The owner then has 21 days to return a witness statement challenging the order for recovery on one of only four grounds. The owner:
• never received the NTO;
• never received a notice of rejection from the council after making representations about the PCN;
• did not receive a notice of refusal from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal after appealing; or
• has already paid the penalty charge.

What happened

17. The Council’s records show that, on 26 March 2019 at 14:42, a vehicle registered in Mr C’s name at his address was seen parked without a permit in a residents’ parking zone in the Council’s area. After observing the vehicle for seven minutes, a CEO issued a PCN by sticking it on the vehicle.
18. The officer took nine photographs of the vehicle from various angles showing its make, model, distinctive markings, registration number and so forth. There is reason, besides the registration, to believe the vehicle is Mr C’s as it is a commercial vehicle with his initials printed on it.
19. Mr C did not contact the Council. The Council then approached the DVLA and discovered that the relevant vehicle was registered in Mr C’s name and, on 29 April 2019, sent him a Notice to Owner.
20. The records indicate that Mr C did not respond to the Council using the Representations form that was included with the NTO in the letter. Mr C says this is because, although he disputes the ticket, the reasons for his challenge are not set out on the form. His grounds are the following:
• He does not accept the Council proved his vehicle was present at the time and place alleged. The number plate might have been cloned;
• He does not accept the authority of the Council, or any national or local government body to fine him. This is, he says, because the form which the Council sent him did not allow him to make the points that he wished to make.
21. Instead, Mr C wrote to the Council. He wrote in May to the chief executive. This letter was sent, instead, to the Council’s corporate complaints team.
22. The Council sent notification to the TEC which processed the PCN which issued an order for recovery. Mr C says the TEC is not a proper court.
23. Mr C complained to the Ombudsman.

Was there fault causing injustice?

Failure to prove Mr C liable for PCN

24. The Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Code provide clear guidance on how councils must issue, process and enforce PCNs. On the evidence seen, the Council followed the law and the Code.
25. The Council has provided evidence that the PCN was properly served on a vehicle bearing the correct number plate at the time and date alleged.
26. Mr C says, in effect, that the Council has not proved to his satisfaction that his vehicle was in the place the Council says it was at the time it says it was.
27. The PCN is, as the Code says, prima facie evidence that a contravention occurred. In this case, a vehicle bearing a registration plate linked to Mr C’s name and address was seen parked in contravention of parking restrictions at the time stated. It was for Mr C to rebut that evidence and prove that he was not liable.
28. Mr C has not stated that his vehicle was not present or provided proof that it was elsewhere. He merely states that the Council has not proved its case. As a matter of law, this is not correct. It did prove it. And he did not rebut that proof.
29. The Council has also provided the Ombudsman with photographs which provide supporting evidence for this claim which I have sent to Mr C.
30. The Act and Code also set out how those who dispute PCNs can challenge them. Mr C did not follow these prescribed steps. The Council is not, therefore, at fault.
31. The initial appeal against a PCN in London should be made to the London Tribunal. Mr C did not do this.

Failure of chief executive to respond and complaint response

32. Mr C says he made a formal complaint to the chief executive who ignored it. I do not find fault. The letter he wrote was processed by officers who decided, having read it, that it was a complaint and sent it to the complaints department. The chief executive, who is responsible for the entire Council, cannot be expected to reply personally to every complaint about a PCN. He would not even have seen it.
33. A complaint handler responded to Mr C and told him that he could not challenge a PCN through the complaints process and told him again that, if he wanted to challenge the PCN, he would have to appeal it. Mr C did not do so.
34. The complaint response was detailed and informative. It told Mr C what he needed to do if he wanted to appeal or dispute the complaint response.

Website not working

35. Mr C says that, when he contacted the Council to try to challenge the PCN, its website was not functioning. I asked him when so I could investigatel but he did not respond. In any event, given that he has never provided evidence to rebut the PCN, it is difficult to see what difference this made.

Intimidation

36. Mr C says the Council attempted to intimidate him as a witness in criminal proceedings. He provided no evidence. I asked the Council to comment. An officer said the Council is unaware of any such proceedings.

Wider concerns

37. Further, Mr C does not agree that the Council or indeed the government, has any authority over him. This is a matter beyond the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. We must find fault with Councils where they are responsible for maladministration or a service failure. In this case, there is neither. I do not find fault.
38. Mr C does not accept that the TEC is a proper court. Again, this is not a matter within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Traffic Management Act and the Code prescribe that councils should process PCNs through the TEC. The Council has followed the prescribed procedures so is not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have decided the Council was not at fault. I have closed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman