Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council dealt with a penalty charge notice. He believed he had paid the charge but there was recovery action which meant that his vehicle was taken by enforcement agents and sold. He said that the loss of the vehicle caused him inconvenience and financial loss. There was fault by the Council. It will apologise to Mr B and make a payment to him.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the way the Council dealt with a penalty charge notice (PCN). He believed he had paid the charge but there was recovery action which meant his vehicle was taken by enforcement agents and sold. He said the loss of the vehicle caused him inconvenience and financial loss.

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. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr B and spoke to him. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B received three PCNs in August 2018. The Council issued a Notice to Owner for the first PCN (PCN1) on 10 September. Mr B phoned the Council on 11 September about the PCNs. He then emailed making representations as to why he should not have to pay. It was not clear to which notice they related. The Council rejected the representations made for PCN2 and PCN3 on 14 September and on 21 September for PCN1.
7. Mr B phoned the Council at the end of September querying the amount due. He was told that for PCN1 he had until 28 October to pay £70 or the matter would proceed to the next stage. The next day Mr B paid £60, the Council credited this to PCN2 and PCN3 and took that in full settlement of those PCNs.
8. At the end of October the Council wrote to Mr B about each of the three PCNs. For PCN3 it said it had accepted a payment of £35 and for PCN2 a payment of £25. This was from the £60 Mr B had paid at the end of September. A third letter about PCN1 said that it had received a payment of £70 and the matter was closed.
9. At the beginning of November the Council sent Mr B a charge certificate for PCN1. Mr B phoned the next day. He said he had had a letter saying payment had been made and the matter was closed. The Council said it had no record of a payment.
10. On 1 February 2019 the Council sent Mr B an order for recovery of an unpaid penalty charge for PCN1. That said he now had to pay £113. The Council did not hear from Mr B and so passed the matter to enforcement agents (bailiffs). The bailiffs sent an enforcement notice to Mr B on 11 March. That said the debt now stood at £188.
11. The bailiffs have provided copies of undated notice of intention to take control of goods and a notification of intended removal. The bailiffs’ records show that they visited Mr B’s property on 15 April but there was no-one home. They left a notice of the intention to take goods.
12. On 14 May the bailiffs returned and clamped Mr B’s car and removed it the next day. At this point the debt stood at £423 because of the fees that had been added for the enforcement action.
13. There is a letter from Mr B dated 15 May complaining about what has happened. He referred to the letter he had received from the Council saying PCN1 had been paid and was now closed. I do not know where Mr B sent the letter but the bailiffs forwarded it to the Council at the end of May. Mr B emailed parking services at the Council at the end of May saying he was waiting for a response. It is not clear from his email to what he is referring.
14. Mr B’s car was sold for £431 in June and the bailiffs received £228 from that sale once the agent had received their fees. This meant there was still an outstanding liability which Mr B paid in two payments in August.
15. Mr B complained to the Council in early August which was passed to parking services. I have not seen any reply from the Council to this complaint.
16. In November Mr B complained again to the Council. Shortly afterwards he complained to the Ombudsman. In January 2020 the Council advised us that the complaint had not been through the Council’s complaints procedure. In response to our further enquiries the Council said it had not replied to Mr B’s November complaint because it considered that he was seeking to challenge a PCN which he needed to do through the appeal process.

What should happen

17. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them. When a council issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal; appeals at this stage are known as ‘informal challenges’.
18. If the motorist submits an informal challenge to a PCN and the Council decides not to accept them, it will write to the motorist and explain why. If the motorist accepts the Council’s reasons they may pay the PCN; if not, they may wait for a ‘notice to owner’. This provides a further opportunity for the owner of the vehicle to pay the charge or make ‘formal representations’ against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to an adjudicator.

Analysis

19. The Council has said it was an error when it wrote to Mr B at the end of October 2018 saying PCN1 had been paid. It has no record of Mr B paying that PCN. Mr B has not provided anything to show he had paid it. But I consider it was reasonable for Mr B to rely on the letter he had received that said the matter was closed. But, in saying, there was further correspondence both from the Council and from the bailiffs which put him notice that there was still an issue with this PCN. There is nothing to show that Mr B did anything more until the visit by bailiffs in May which resulted in his car being clamped and, ultimately, sold.
20. The Council appear to have done nothing to respond to Mr B’s complaints. Firstly in May 2019, had it looked into the matter properly then it is arguable that it could have prevented the sale of the car. There was no response to his renewed complaint in August or again in November. The Council acknowledged that it had not responded to the November complaint but gave as a reason that it considered that Mr B needed to appeal. If that was the case then it should have told him that.
21. So there was fault in wrongly saying PCN1 was paid and closed and in failing to respond to Mr B’s complaint. It was also wrong that the bailiffs’ records have undated key documents. As the bailiffs are acting on behalf of the Council in this matter that is fault.
22. In responding to us about the complaint the Council offered to pay Mr B £1200 for the loss of his vehicle and £100 goodwill payment. Mr B had said his car was worth £1200 although it only achieved a sale price of £430. I recognise that the means of sale may not have achieved the best possible price. I consider it would be reasonable to say the car was worth £650. In addition to the car Mr B and his family were caused a great deal of distress and inconvenience. Mr B said his wife lost her job because she needed the car to travel there. Mr B also had to pay a further almost £200 to the bailiffs to clear the debt. So I consider the Council should pay Mr B £850 to cover the loss of the car and the money he paid to the bailiffs. The Council’s offer of £1300 would mean that he was effectively receiving a further £450 in recognition of the time and trouble he was put to and the distress caused. I consider this is a fair resolution of the complaint.

Agreed action

23. Within one month of the final decision the Council will pay Mr B £1300 and apologise to him.
24. The Council should also raise the issue of the undated notices with the enforcement agents and let the Ombudsman know the outcome of that. That should be completed within two months of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

25. There was fault by the Council. It will apologise to Mr B and make a payment to him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman