Summary: Ms B complained about the Council’s lack of action after she told it the person it was sending Penalty Charge Notice correspondence to, did not live at her address. We found the Council was at fault and this put Ms B to avoidable time and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms B and make a symbolic payment of £100.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained about Council’s lack of action after she told it the person it was sending Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) correspondence to did not live at her address. She said that had caused her distress because she feared the bailiffs would come to her home.

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 considered the information provided by Ms B.
5. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries.
6. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Penalty charge notices

7. When the Council issues a penalty charge notice (PCN), it contacts the DVLA to get the registered keeper’s details and address. This is the person believed most likely to be responsible for the car at the time of the contravention and, therefore, any PCNs incurred.
8. If the PCN is not paid within 28 days the Council sends a Charge Certificate to the registered keeper. If the PCN remains unpaid, the Council can apply to register the debt at the Traffic Enforcement Centre. The Council then sends an Order for Recovery. If the PCN remains unpaid the Council asks for a Warrant of Control and passes the debt to enforcement agents (bailiffs) for recovery.
9. London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement says that "At all stages, it is essential that the authority takes all reasonable steps to ensure that the appropriate notices are, in fact, served on the person to whom they are addressed. If the authority believes that service has not taken place then enforcement action cannot proceed. It is therefore important to have procedures in place for dealing with returned (undelivered) post as items that have not been served."

The Council’s process for unpaid PCNs

10. The Council states it passes details of PCNs that have reached Charge Certificate stage to an enforcement service (the Service). As at this point, it considers the person liable for the PCN to be an ‘absconder’. The Service carries out tracking activities in order to locate the correct address of the person liable for the debt. If the Service finds an alternative address it updates the Council who will then start the statutory enforcement process. If the Service cannot find an alternative address, the Council will put the PCN on hold until debtor’s correct address is located.

Background

11. Between June and August 2018, the Council issued seven PCN’s against a vehicle. It contacted the DVLA for the registered keeper details. It sent the PCNs to the registered keeper, Ms Z. Ms Z contacted the Council and confirmed she had sold the vehicle to Mr X. She provided the Council with evidence of the sale, including an informal contract of sale, and the address Mr X provided. Mr X had incorrectly given Ms B’s address.

What happened

12. Towards the end of 2018, the Council sent twelve statutory notices to Mr X at Ms B’s address. Ms X returned those to sender.
13. She anonymously contacted the Council by email in January 2019 and told it Mr X did not live at her address and that she was the sole occupier. She asked the Council to stop sending letters to her home.
14. Following that email, the Council asked the Service to track the correct address of the registered keeper of the vehicle. It also sent a letter to Ms B’s address. In that letter it acknowledged that Ms B had told it Mr X did not live at that address. It asked Ms B not to open any further correspondence addressed to Mr X and return it to sender. It said it would ‘endeavour to trace the keeper’s correct address’.
15. Over the next twelve months, the Council sent a further seven letters to Mr X at Ms B’s address. Ms B returned these to the Council.
16. In June 2020 Ms B complained to the Council as she kept on receiving letters addressed to Mr X. She asked the Council to compensate her for the distress the letters had caused her. She said that for over 12 months the thought of enforcement agents turning up at her doorstep and confiscating her personal belongings scared her. She also suggested the Council should have carried out a search to find the correct correspondence address for Mr X.
17. The Council responded and said it had evidence showing Mr X had provided Ms B’s address when he had bought the car. The Council believed it to be the correct address for Mr X. The Council told Ms B that she should return any correspondence to sender. It also advised that Ms B may wish to contact DVLA herself and get a letter confirming there was no connection between her address and the car.
18. The Council addressed Ms B’s fear of enforcement agents and told her what to do if enforcement agents showed up.
19. Ms B disagreed and said the Council should have told DVLA to correct Mr X’s address on its records.
20. In September 2020 the Council provided their final position and did not uphold Ms B’s complaint. It said that, as anyone can register a vehicle with DVLA at any address without proof being required, the same can occur with a private sale of a vehicle. At the time, there was no way for the Council to check the veracity of information provided on a private sale documents, and it accepted the information in good faith.
21. Ms B disagreed and wanted the Council to apologise and compensate her for the distress.

Council’s response to enquiries

22. The Council said that at the end of January 2019, the Service advised it to place one of the PCN’s for Mr X on hold because there was insufficient information to link him to Ms B’s address. The Council put five of the PCN’s on hold but said a further two remained outstanding because of a processing error. These progressed to warrant stage. As a result of these two PCN’s remaining active, the Council sent further statutory notices and the Service visited Ms B in May 2019 however she was not at home.
23. The Council confirmed that after Ms B’s complaint, it updated its records, and it wrote off all PCNs linked to Ms B’s address. This reduces the chances of Ms B receiving any further correspondence from the Council about the PCNs.

My findings

24. I have seen no evidence of fault in how the Council initially identified Mr X’s address. It contacted the DVLA and considered the evidence provided by Ms Z, that confirmed Mr X said he lived at Ms B’s address.
25. The Council sent 12 statutory notices to Ms B before she contacted the Council in January 2019. At this point the Council believed the address it had for Mr X was correct. The Council was not at fault.
26. In late January 2019 the Service contacted the Council and said it did not find any connection between Mr X and Ms B’s address. The Council suspended several of the PCNs, but due to a processing error two of them progressed. That error amounts to a fault. That meant the Council sent a further seven letters to Ms B despite being told there was no connection between Mr X and Ms B’s address.
27. I consider that, the processing error meant that Ms B went to additional time and trouble in having to return more letters to Council and making a complaint. For this reason, I have recommended a symbolic time and trouble payment.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within one month of my decision the Council will:
• Apologise for the processing error and the avoidable time and trouble this has caused Ms B; and
• Pay Ms B £100 for the avoidable time and trouble that she has been put through because of Councils actions.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation and uphold Ms B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Ms B. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy her injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman