Summary: Mr G complained about the Council’s actions in relation to a parking Penalty Charge Notice which was issued after Mr G made an error entering information on a payment application. We have found no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr G complained about the Council’s actions in relation to a Penalty Charge Notice. He also alleged the Council was dismissive about his complaint to it and the impact the matter had on him. Mr G said the Council’s failings caused him significant distress and financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 discussed the complaint with Mr G and considered the information he provided. I considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
5. I sent Mr G and the Council a copy of my draft decision and considered the comments received prior to reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
7. In March 2020, Mr G paid for his parking using an online payment application. Mr G made an error when he entered his vehicle registration number on the payment application. He typed the number 0 instead of the letter O. The Council issued Mr G a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for failing to pay for his parking.
8. In April 2020, the Council requested the details of the registered keeper of the vehicle from DVLA. Between May and October 2020, the Council sent all PCN statutory correspondence to the address provided by DVLA. The Council said it did not receive any response from Mr G and he did not make any PCN payments during the statutory timescales. The Council confirmed some of the letters it sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle were returned handwritten on the envelope “not living here”.
9. In October 2020, the Council registered the PCN with the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the matter was forwarded to an Enforcement Agency.
10. Mr G said he did not receive any PCN correspondence from the Council. He said the first time he became aware of the PCN matter was when an Enforcement Agent clamped his car in late October 2020. Mr G said he had to pay the Enforcement Agent £513 on the same day to avoid it towing his vehicle away. Mr G said this was an absolute shock to him which caused him significant distress and financial loss.
11. Mr G made a complaint to the Council. He said the Council wrongly issued the PCN because he paid for his parking in March 2020 via an online payment application. Mr G provided the Council the receipt as proof of payment. He also alleged the Council did not attach a PCN to his vehicle. Mr G complained he did not receive any PCN correspondence because the Council sent the notices to a wrong address.
12. In response to Mr G’s complaint, the Council explained it could not find a parking session for the vehicle parked in March 2020 and it issued the PCN. The Council said from the payment receipt Mr G supplied to the Council, it noticed he had entered a wrong vehicle registration number. The Council further explained it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure the correct vehicle details are entered when paying for parking. The Council maintained it issued the PCN correctly and all statutory correspondence was sent to the address of the registered keeper of the vehicle as provided by DVLA. The Council advised Mr G to contact DVLA to amend the vehicle’s registered keeper incorrect details.
13. Mr G requested an appeal. The Council informed Mr G it was too late for him to appeal the PCN. Mr G remained dissatisfied and made a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

14. Evidence shows Mr G made an error with his vehicle registration number when he paid for his parking in March 2020. On this basis, the Council had no evidence the motorist had paid for the parked vehicle, therefore it issued the PCN. Mr G alleged the Council did not attach the PCN on his vehicle. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided photographic evidence to show the PCN was attached to Mr G’s vehicle. I therefore do not find fault by the Council with how it issued the PCN in March 2020.
15. Evidence also shows the Council sent all statutory PCN correspondence to a wrong address. I do not find fault by the Council because it used the details of the vehicle’s registered keeper as provided by DVLA.
16. I also find no evidence of fault by the Council regarding how it handled Mr G’s PCN in relation to the enforcement actions. Evidence shows its actions were in line with statutory PCN guidelines. I appreciate Mr G considered the Council’s response to his complaint was dismissive and he believed the Council treated him unfairly for a minor error he made when he paid for his parking. However, there is no evidence the Council incorrectly issued and/or dealt with Mr G’s PCN.
17. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed the onus is on the motorist to ensure the correct vehicle registration number is entered into any payment system. But due to Mr G’s genuine error of entering an incorrect digit when he paid for his parking through an online application, as a goodwill gesture the Council has agreed to cancel his PCN and it will refund all fees Mr G has paid in relation to this matter. I consider the Council’s proposed actions are suitable remedies to resolve this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I find no fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr G’s parking Penalty Charge Notice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman