Summary: Mr X complained that, after he successfully challenged a penalty charge notice, the Council refused to refund money he had paid to its bailiffs. The Council later offered a refund, which was acceptable to Mr X, and we therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council refused to refund £204 he paid to prevent bailiffs adding more costs to a penalty charge notice debt he later successfully challenged in the courts. Mr X said what happened caused him stress and financial loss. Mr X wanted an apology, his £204 refunded, payment of his legal costs and for the Council to improve its procedures.

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. 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 have:

• considered Mr X’s written complaint and supporting papers;
• talked to Mr X about the complaint;
• considered the Council’s comments about the complaint;
• shared the Council’s offer to resolve the complaint with Mr X and considered his response; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mr X and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Councils have powers to issue penalty charge notices (PCNs) to people if they do not follow parking and moving traffic rules. After issuing a PCN, the law sets out further steps councils must take to recover the penalty charge. These steps also give people opportunities to challenge the PCN, including to an independent Tribunal. As a PCN passes along the legal steps, the amount payable increases. The legal steps may end with a council registering the charge as a debt with the court known as the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). If the debt remains unpaid, councils may then ask enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover the debt. Bailiffs will also add their recovery charges to the debt.
6. The law says the ‘keeper’ of a car must immediately tell the DVLA of a change of name or address and return their car registration document. The DVLA will then change its records and send the ‘keeper’ an updated registration document. Councils will contact the DVLA for information about the registered keeper of cars when they want to issue a PCN. Councils will send formal notices and correspondence about PCNs to the address provided by the DVLA for the named registered keeper of the car.
7. If someone only finds out about a PCN after the TEC has registered the charge as a debt, they may apply to the TEC to set aside the registration. A successful application may also cancel earlier steps taken to recover the penalty charge. Councils may then restart the legal steps. If an application is not successful, people may apply to a District Judge to review the TEC’s decision.

What happened

8. Mr X moved home in June and started telling organisations about his new address, including the Council for his council tax and the DVLA for his driving licence. Mr X contacted the DVLA again in August to change his address on his vehicle registration document. (Mr X said “it took weeks” for the DVLA to return his registration document showing his new address.)
9. That same August, the Council wanted to issue a PCN for a car being driven in a bus lane. The Council contacted the DVLA for the name and address of the registered keeper of the car. The DVLA gave the Council Mr X’s name and his old address. Over the next five months, the Council went through the legal steps to recover the penalty charge and register the debt with the TEC. At each step, the Council wrote to Mr X at his old address.
10. The Council then asked bailiffs to recover the registered debt. The bailiffs found Mr X’s new address and contacted him seeking payment of £408. Mr X said this was when he first became aware of the PCN. And, to avoid the bailiffs adding further fees being to the debt, he made a part payment of £204. Mr X also applied, successfully, to the TEC to set aside the registered debt. And, over the next two months, Mr X repeatedly asked the Council to refund his £204 payment and reissue the PCN to his new address.
11. The Council then said it had taken legal advice and did not have to refund fees following a successful application to the TEC. It had received £30.99 from the bailiffs and would accept this as “full settlement” for the PCN, which remained valid. The Council said it considered the case closed.
12. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. The Council then offered to settle the complaint. The Council said the amount for a bus lane PCN was £60, discounted to £30 if paid within 14 days. The Council said it would refund £173.01 to Mr X, that being the balance of his £204 payment minus the £30.99 it had received from the bailiffs. The Council said, in keeping the £30.99, it would not reissue the PCN but consider the case closed.
13. Mr X said the Council’s approach denied people their right to challenge a PCN. And yet, in this case, he accepted the contravention had taken place and would agree the Council’s refund proposal. Mr X also said the Council should change its procedures to ensure that it used peoples’ valid postal address when dealing with PCNs.

Consideration

14. The Council acted correctly in asking the DVLA for information about the registered keeper of the car it found breaking traffic rules. And, having received that information from the DVLA, the Council was correct to use the address supplied by the DVLA in seeking payment of the PCN. It was unfortunate for Mr X the DVLA had either not received or processed his application to change his address on his vehicle registration document when it responded to the Council. And yet, the evidence does not show there was fault here by the Council.
15. The Council said its legal advice was no fee refunds were necessary after a successful application to the TEC. The courts, not the Ombudsman, have the power to decide disputed legal points. And yet, the Ombudsman’s view is that good administrative practice means councils should refund bailiffs’ fees after a successful application to the TEC.
16. The Council should also give people an opportunity to challenge a PCN that remains valid after a successful application to the TEC. The Council’s original position, to make no refund and consider Mr X’s PCN case as ‘closed’, was unhelpful and represented poor administrative practice.
17. However, Mr X says the contravention took place and the Council’s refund of £173.01 is acceptable. I therefore completed my investigation as the Council had agreed to put matters right for Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

18. The Council agreed to pay Mr X £173.01 within one calendar month of this decision statement.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I completed my investigation, finding fault causing injustice, on the Council agreeing the recommendation at paragraph 18 of this statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman