Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of more than 20 penalty charge notices for failing to pay a toll. The Council has waived more than £2,500 in costs and it is unlikely we would recommend any further remedy for Miss X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains about the Council’s handling of more than 20 penalty charge notices (PCNs) for crossing a toll bridge without paying the toll.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• the Council has taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) and 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Miss X’s complaint, made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I shared my draft decision with Miss X and invited her comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Miss X has an account with Merseyflow to pay the toll for crossing the Mersey Gateway bridge. Merseyflow acts on behalf of the Council in administering the payment process and issuing PCNs for non-payment. The Council retains overall responsibility for this and we consider the actions of Merseyflow as those of the Council itself.
5. As the account is a pre-pay system it must have a balance high enough to cover the cost of any crossings. If it does not, the toll fee cannot be paid and the motorist may be issued with a PCN.
6. The Council says it emailed Miss X numerous times reminding her that her balance was low but she did not add sufficient credit to cover the cost of her crossing and did not have “auto top-up” activated to do this automatically. The Council therefore issued PCNs on more than 20 occasions where Miss X crossed the bridge and the balance on her account was not sufficient to pay the toll.
7. The vehicle Miss X has registered on her account belongs to her father. So when the Council issued the PCNs it sent them to him. Mr X has recently moved and did not receive the Council’s PCNs. As they remained unpaid, the Council escalated the cases; this increased the amount owed and resulted in registration of the unpaid PCNs, which totalled more than £3,000, as a debt at the County Court.
8. Miss X became aware of the PCNs when the Council instructed enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover payment from her father, as the registered keeper of the vehicle and person liable for the PCNs, and they traced him to his new address. She contacted the Council and it agreed it would accept £229 in settlement of the matter. This is the amount of the original toll fees Miss X should have paid for her crossings.
9. Miss X attempted to make the payment but says the Council would not let her pay as the PCNs were issued in her father’s name. She then went on holiday. When she returned she contacted the Council again and it confirmed the matter was still on hold while it awaited payment. But the Council’s bailiffs then visited her father at home demanding payment of the full amount of more than £3,000. She contacted the Council again, paid the £229 agreed and complained. She believes the Council should refund her payment and change its process.
10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Miss X is not the registered keeper of the vehicle or the person liable for the PCNs. But the Council has accepted her explanation and agreed to waive more than £2,500 in costs which it did not have to do. Miss X has now paid the amount owed and the matter is closed. This provides a suitable remedy for this matter and it is unlikely we would recommend anything further for her.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has provided a suitable remedy for the injustice Miss X claims.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman