Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about two penalty charge notices issued by the Council. The Council has offered a remedy for any injustice caused by delay in repaying one penalty charge. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the other penalty charge notice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss C, has complained about how the Council dealt with two penalty charge notices it issued to her. One was for a parking contravention and the other for a box junction contravention
2. Miss C says fault by the Council has caused her severe stress and financial hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. Similarly, 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 go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. More generally, 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’.
7. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained;
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement;
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council; or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered what Miss C said in her complaint and spoken with her. The Council also provided background information including its responses to Miss C’s complaint. Miss C commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

9. The Council enforces parking restrictions and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the Traffic Management Act 2004 and associated Regulations. The procedures relating to box junction contraventions are set out in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 and associated Regulations.
10. The Council and motorists must follow the statutory procedures although the Council has discretion to stop enforcement or recovery action if it believes there are good reasons to do so.
11. In law, the owner of vehicle is responsible for any penalty charges regardless of who was driving at the time of the contravention. This is most often the person registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) as the keeper of the vehicle. Enforcement authorities will initially send any formal documents using keeper details provided by the DVLA.
12. The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 require the owner of a vehicle to immediately inform the DVLA of any change of address. It is an offence under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 to use a vehicle where the correct address is not held by the DVLA.

Summary of events – parking contravention

13. In early April 2019, the Council believed a car owned by Miss C was parked where this was not permitted. It issued a penalty charge notice and removed the car to a pound. When Miss C discovered this, she had to pay £265 so the Council would release the car.
14. Miss C made representations against the penalty charge notice. She explained the difficult domestic circumstances at the time and asked the Council to refund the money she had paid. She gave the Council a mobile phone number, an email address and a temporary postal address which she asked the Council to use.
15. The Council considered Miss C’s representations against the penalty charge notice and decided to cancel the penalty charge. It wrote to Miss C with the decision and asked for a mobile phone number so it could refund what she had paid. However, the Council wrote to Miss C at an address provided by the DVLA, not the address she had provided. As a result, Miss C was unaware of the Council’s decision.
16. The Council took no action until Miss C chased a response in September 2019. It then tried to make a refund but further errors led to this not happening. At the final stage of its complaints procedure, the Council organised the refund. It also offered to pay Miss C £100 to recognise the faults in its handling of the penalty charge notice and the refund.

Analysis – parking contravention

17. The Council accepted Miss C’s representations against the penalty charge notice and should have refunded £265 about seven months before it actually did. This was fault by the Council. I consider the Council’s offer to pay £100 to Miss C is a suitable remedy for any injustice caused to her by its delay.

Summary of events – box junction contravention

18. In late April 2019, the Council witnessed a car stopped in a box junction when this was not allowed. It obtained details from the DVLA and so sent a penalty charge notice to Miss C at the address where the car was registered. It appears Miss C had moved from this address in December 2018.
19. As it received no payment or response to the penalty charge notice, the Council continued with recovery action in line with the Regulations. It eventually registered the unpaid penalty charge, which has increased to £195, as a debt at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. A court fee of £8 was also added.
20. The TEC issued a warrant to the Council which allowed it to use bailiffs to collect the debt plus the bailiffs’ fees which are set out in Regulations. Bailiffs visited Miss C so their fees would be £310. Miss C agreed to pay the total debt of £513 by instalments.
21. When it considered her complaint, the Council decided to exercise discretion to cancel the penalty charge notice and refund £180.70 which she had by then paid to the bailiffs. By doing so, it effectively removed the bailiffs’ fees of £310.

Analysis – bus lane contravention

22. Miss C had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice to London Tribunals which is a statutory tribunal. An appeal to London Tribunals is free and relatively easy to use. It is also the way in which Parliament expects people to challenge a penalty charge notice. For these reasons, the restriction I describe in paragraph 4 generally applies.
23. Miss C first became aware to the penalty charge notice when bailiffs visited her. At this time, Miss C could have made a statutory declaration to the TEC that she had not received the penalty charge notice. If the TEC had accepted this, the Council would have refunded any extra charges and reissued the penalty charge notice. Miss C could then have made representations and appealed to London Tribunals if the Council did not accept these. However, Miss C did not have to do this because the Council cancelled the original penalty charge notice.
24. While I understand there may have been circumstances leading to delay in Miss C telling the DVLA she had moved, the Council was not at fault in using the information it provided. I consider there is no evidence of fault by the Council in how it has dealt with this penalty charge notice.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint for the reasons given in paragraphs 21 and 24.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman