Summary: We find fault with the Council’s handling of two wrongly issued Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). This caused Mr B time, trouble and distress. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, make a payment to him and make data entry staff aware of the complaint and learn from it.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council wrongly issued him with two penalty charge notice (PCNs) in July 2019 and August 2019. Mr B says he did not know the Council had issued two separate PCNs. Mr B says he challenged the PCN and believed the Council had cancelled the PCN. The Council did cancel one PCN however, the other PCN was registered with the Traffic Enforcement Centre. Mr B complains the Council wrongly issued the PCN which resulted in enforcement proceedings which caused him stress and time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
4. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), part of the county court, considers applications to restore the PCN enforcement process to an earlier stage where they believe the enforcing authority has not followed the proper process in pursuing or escalating a PCN.
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.

How I considered this complaint

8. I have spoken to Mr B by telephone and have considered what he has said in support of his complaint. I have also considered correspondence from the Council.
9. I have given Mr B and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft and have taken their views and comments into account before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

10. There is a set procedure councils must follow under the Traffic Management Act 2004 when issuing and pursuing PCNs for bus lane contraventions. When a council identifies a contravention it will issue a PCN to the owner/registered keeper by post. This will detail the amount of the fine and the motorist’s right of appeal, firstly to the council itself and then to a Tribunal. For the first 14 days after the PCN the motorist may pay at a discounted rate of 50% of the full fine. Some councils will allow informal representations at this stage.
11. If the motorist does not pay the PCN or challenge it, or if their informal challenge is unsuccessful, the council will issue an enforcement notice. This provides the motorist an opportunity to make formal representations to the council against the PCN, or to pay penalty charge in full. If the Council rejects a motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to the Tribunal.
12. If the motorist does not pay or challenge the PCN the council may pursue the motorist for payment. It will first issue a charge certificate, increasing the amount of the PCN by 50%, and then register the debt with the TEC. This adds a further fee. If the motorist believes the Council has not followed the correct process in pursuing the PCN there are grounds on which they may apply to the TEC to take the process back to an earlier stage.
13. Bus lane contraventions are enforced in Greater London under the London Local Authorities Act 1996.
14. By their nature, penalty charge notices for bus lane contraventions are usually served by post. The 1996 Act and 2005 Regulations allow only a 14 day discount period (unlike the 21 day period for parking penalty charge notices served by post).

What happened

15. The Council issued Mr B with two separate PCNs in July and August 2019 for bus lane contraventions, neither of which were in relation to his car.
16. Mr B says he was not aware the Council had issued two separate PCNs with unique reference numbers. Mr B believed the second PCN was a continuation of the first PCN issued. He emailed the Council in September 2019 and made an informal challenge to the second PCN issued in August 2019. Mr B told the Council he had not driven in the area on the day of the contravention. He highlighted the car in the photograph displayed on the PCN was not his car and had a different number plate.
17. The Council replied to Mr B’s informal challenge within two days. It cancelled the PCN and admitted that an error had occurred when inputting the car registration.
18. The Council says it did not receive any correspondence or payment from Mr B about the PCN issued in July 2019. It escalated the case and registered the unpaid PCN as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). It then passed the case to enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover the unpaid debt.
19. Mr B received enforcement letters to his home address and he received a telephone call from the enforcement agency. Mr B says his parents also lived at the address and receiving the enforcement letters caused both himself and them distress. Mr B says he did not know the Council had wrongly issued two separate PCNs.
20. Mr B says he reasonably believed the Council had cancelled the PCN and upon receiving the enforcement letters he sent an email to the Council in May 2020 requesting assistance and disputing the PCN.
21. Mr B says the Council did not reply to his email. He says he continued to receive letters from the enforcement agency.
22. Mr B says he sent a further email to the Council in August 2020. He says this email was similar to the one he sent in May 2020. Mr B emailed the Council and said he disputed the PCN and says he believed it was cancelled in August 2019.
23. The Council responded to the email explaining it had issued two PCNs with unique reference numbers. The Council admitted that an error had occurred when the car registration number had been inputted resulting in Mr B receiving the PCN. The Council cancelled the second PCN within a few days of acknowledging Mr B’s email in August 2020.
24. Mr B says the Council has not apologised for issuing the two PCNs in error. He says he feels the Council should compensate him for the time, trouble and distress he says he incurred from receiving enforcement letters and by having to correspond with the Council about the PCN.
25. I am mindful that motorists are normally expected to follow the appeal process if they wish to challenge a PCN, even if the PCN was issued in error. The Council says it never received any correspondence from Mr B about the July 2019 PCN. It says it sent out documents detailing Mr B’s statutory rights of appealing to a tribunal and further to make a statutory declaration. However, in this case I believe that Mr B held a reasonable expectation the Council had cancelled the PCN and was not aware it had issued two separate PCNs.
26. Mr B’s account is that he emailed the Council in May 2020 disputing the PCN, as at that point he believed it had only issued one. He told the Council he thought it had been cancelled after he contacted it before. The Council disputes receiving or responding to correspondence from Mr B about the PCN issued in July 2019.
27. I have seen a chain of emails between Mr B and the Council dated May and August 2020. These emails document Mr B’s belief the Council had cancelled the PCN. The emails were sent from Mr B’s email to the email address the Council provided and are labelled ‘sent’ with the date provided. On the balance of probabilities, I accept Mr B’s account that he sent an email to the Council challenging the PCN in May 2020.
28. Had the Council acted on Mr B’s email it would have been able to cancel the PCN from July 2019 earlier than it did. Its failure to do this is fault which caused Mr B time, trouble and distress.
29. I acknowledge to the Council’s credit it has admitted issuing both PCNs in error. It says this was down to entering one letter of the car registration wrongly. The Council cancelled the PCN issued in August 2019 swiftly when informally challenged by Mr B. However, I find fault with the Council for issuing both PCNs and it is from these errors that later events resulted.
30. The Council say it has made the enforcement manager aware of the error and has ensured it has taken steps to avoid such errors in the future. The Council should also advise its data entry staff about this complaint for them to benefit from the learning it provides. However, I consider further remedy is needed for the for the time, trouble and distress to Mr B when receiving the PCNs and enforcement notices.
31. The Council has cancelled both PCNs and has said it has taken steps to avoid such errors in the future. This went some way in remedying the injustice Mr B suffered.

Agreed action

32. The Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Mr B for issuing two incorrect PCNs and its failure to respond to his challenge in May 2020.
• Pay £100 to Mr B for the time, trouble and distress he endured when he received enforcement letters about the PCN.
• Advise its data entry staff about this complaint in order for them to learn from it.

Back to top

Final decision

33. There was fault causing injustice by the Council. It has agreed to remedy this so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman