Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s recovery of a penalty charge notice which he said caused him distress. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr X complains the Council continued recovery of a PCN charge when he told it he had made a witness statement that he had not received the notice. He says it also ignored information that vulnerable people lived at his address and threatened recovery action causing him distress.

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. A colleague discussed the complaint with Mr X and I have considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by Mr X. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I have provided a copy of this information to Mr X.
5. I have explained my draft decision to Mr X and the Council and provided an opportunity for comment.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council issued a PCN to Mr X in March 2019 for parking with one or more wheels on the pavement. The Council sent Mr X a notice to owner in May. Mr X says he did not receive the PCN or the notice. The notice was sent to the same address as the subsequent charge certificate which Mr X did receive. There is no evidence that Mr X failed to receive the previous documents due to some fault by the Council.
7. The Council sent Mr X a charge certificate in July stating that the amount outstanding was £195 including the charge certificate increase of £65. The charge certificate stated in a boxed section on the reverse that Mr X could file a witness statement on one of the applicable grounds (including that he had not received the notice to owner) once the order for recovery was sent. Mr X received the charge certificate.
8. The next stage was for the Council to apply for an order of recovery which enabled it to use enforcement agents to recover the debt. However, Mr X sent a witness statement to the TEC in July before an order for recovery had been made. The TEC emailed Mr X to say it had not been able to process his form as the PCN he had quoted had not been registered at the TEC.
9. An order for recovery was subsequently made in September. Mr X sent a further witness statement to the TEC in September stating he had not received the PCN or notice to owner. Mr X used the incorrect PCN number in his email to the TEC although he provided the correct number on the attached witness statement.
10. The TEC emailed Mr X in October to say it could not process his form and correspondence as the PCN he had quoted had not been registered at the TEC. This would appear to be because of the incorrect PCN number in Mr X’s covering email. Neither the TEC nor Mr X identified the discrepancy. The TEC advised Mr X to contact the Council. This email also referred to an incorrect PCN number.
11. Mr X emailed the Council in October with a copy of the email he had received from the TEC saying it had not been able to process his form and a copy of his witness statement. The Council did not take any action.
12. The Council passed the account to its enforcement agent In February 2020. The enforcement agent sent Mr X a notice of enforcement which explained it had added fees of £75 and that it could take further action such as visiting to take control of goods if Mr X did not pay or arrange to pay within a set period.
13. Mr X emailed the Council directly in February. Mr X explained he had tried to file a witness statement with the TEC but was told the PCN was not registered with them. Mr X highlighted that he had advised the Council of this situation at the time in October.
14. The Council responded in February to note the use of an incorrect PCN number by Mr X and the TEC. The Council explained this meant the TEC had not been able to identify the case. The Council advised that Mr X could pay the full amount due to its enforcement agent or he could file a late witness statement to the TEC and provided links to the relevant forms. The Council confirmed it would place the case on hold for 14 days pending Mr X filing a late witness statement.
15. The enforcement agent sent Mr X a letter of compliance in May. Mr X contacted the Council in May 2020 to say he was in the process of resolving matters with the TEC and that vulnerable persons lived at his address so the Council should ensure there were no enforcement visits. Mr X also raised the issue of vulnerability with the enforcement agent directly.
16. The enforcement agents did not visit Mr X. The case was revoked by the TEC and the Council sought the return of the warrant in May after the TEC accepted Mr X’s out of time witness statement.
17. Mr X was provided the opportunity to appeal. The Environment and Traffic Adjudicators allowed the appeal and the PCN and notice to owner were cancelled.

Analysis

18. Based on the information and evidence I have seen I have found no evidence of fault by the Council in its actions to progress the matter to its enforcement agent. The Council followed the correct process. Unfortunately, Mr X filed his first witness statement too early before the order for recovery had been made and his second witness statement was sent to the TEC with an incorrect PCN number in the covering email.
19. There was an opportunity to identify the discrepancy in the PCN number when Mr X sent an email to the Council in October. However, I do not consider the Council was at fault here. The Council is not responsible for processing or checking documents sent to the TEC. The Council had correctly registered the PCN with the TEC at that stage.
20. I also note the PCN has now been cancelled and the case has been returned from the Council’s enforcement agents and the matter closed.
21. I have also considered Mr X’s contact with the Council about vulnerable persons at his property. This contact was in May after the Council had already passed the matter to its enforcement agents in February. The warrant had been withdrawn by the time the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint about this issue.
22. The Council has explained that its agents have a specialist welfare team to deal with vulnerability and they would ask for proof of vulnerability before any visits to enforce. The Council has explained that if Mr X had raised this as an issue directly to the Council before enforcement action it would have asked for proof of vulnerability and any information received would have been passed to it agents for them to conduct their own checks with the person named on the warrant for any potential vulnerability if they later needed to visit the property. The enforcement agent would also contact the Council if they identified any concerns during a visit. This did not apply here as no visit took place.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation as I have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman