Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for not properly managing communications about a Parking Charge Notice. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the Council for poor complaint handling. This caused the complainant distress and delayed resolving the issues. The Council has agreed to apologise to the complainant and pay a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council continued to send parking enforcement notices to his address for a car that was not registered there.
2. Mr B complains the Council did not acknowledge his attempts to explain the car was not registered at his address and continued to send notices which resulted in enforcement action.
3. Mr B complains this has caused him stress and that he had to arrange with the enforcement agency to stop pursuing the debt.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered Mr B’s complaint and the information he provided. I also considered information from the Council. I considered comments from Mr B and the Council on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Parking Charge Notices (PCN)

7. If a car parks in breach of parking rules, a penalty charge notice (PCN) may follow.
8. An informal challenge against the PCN can be made within 28 days of its issue. If the challenge is successful there is nothing to pay. The Council will issue a notice to owner (NTO) form if it rejects the appeal and the vehicle owner does not pay the fine.
9. A formal appeal (also called representations) must be made within 28 days of receiving the NTO form. If the Council accepts the formal appeal it will cancel the PCN.
10. If the Council rejects the appeal, the fine remains due, or the owner must appeal to an independent adjudicator. 
11. The Council may ask enforcement agents to attend a person’s property and take control of goods to recover an outstanding penalty charge for breaking parking rules.

What happened

12. In November 2019, Mr B started to receive letters from the Council to his property about parking tickets on a car he did not own.
13. Mr B returned the post to the Council. He also wrote to the Council advising that he believed the car was registered to his address fraudulently, and the car did not belong to anyone at his address.
14. Mr B continued to receive notices about the debt from the parking tickets at his address. He also received letters about enforcement action due to take place for the unpaid debt of the parking tickets.
15. Mr B continued to return the post to the Council and in July 2020 again wrote to the Council explaining the car was not registered to anyone at his address.
16. Mr B did not receive a response from the Council, and instead contacted the enforcement agency which had issued notices of enforcement action to his address.
17. Mr B liaised with the enforcement agency, and he got a letter from the DVLA confirming the car was not registered at his address. The enforcement agency agreed to stop enforcement action and passed the case back to the Council.
18. In November 2020, Mr B complained to the Council for continuing to issue letters and notices to his property for the unpaid debt.
19. In its complaint response, the Council said it had a contract with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to get details of the registered keeper of cars. It accepted that Mr B provided evidence from the DVLA the car was not registered to his address and stopped enforcement action.
20. Mr B was not satisfied with the Council’s response as he felt he had tried to resolve the issue with the Council for a long time. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman about the action the Council had taken.

Analysis

21. I have reviewed documents from both the Council and Mr B about the unpaid parking ticket, and notices of enforcement action that followed. While the letters were not addressed directly to Mr B, they are to his address. As the sole resident, I understand it would have caused him great distress to think that enforcement action may be taken at his property.
22. The Council has a legal right to gain details of registered keepers of cars that have PCNs. It can employ various methods to gain the details of registered keepers to chase the debt.
23. In Mr B’s complaint, the Council contacted the DVLA and was provided with a previous owner of the car, who advised they had sold the car. It then contacted the company that sold the car and was provided with Mr B’s address.
24. The Council was provided with information which it acted on, and I therefore do not find fault with the Council for how it initially pursued the PCNs. It is not the Council’s fault if the car was fraudulently registered at Mr B’s address.
25. However, Mr B was eligible to make representations about the PCNs according to the Council’s parking policy. The Council says the advice on how to do this was on the back of the letters it sent to Mr B’s address.
26. The Council said Mr B’s first letter did not contain enough information which would count as a representation and warrant the Council to stop action.
27. However, during my investigation, the Council accepted that Mr B’s second letter to the Council did contain enough information and could have been considered as a late representation for the PCN debt.
28. This was fault by the Council to not exercise its discretion to consider this information sooner or respond to his letters.
29. As a result, Mr B continued to be caused distress by the matter. He felt he was left with no option but to liaise with the enforcement agency directly to make sure enforcement action did not take place. This resulted in unnecessary delay in resolving the matter and caused Mr B distress.
30. The Council has since reminded staff to exercise appropriate discretion when receiving late representations for PCNs. I consider this to be a suitable remedy to ensure similar matters do not occur. However, it does not address the injustice caused to Mr B.

Complaint handling

31. I have also reviewed the complaints correspondence between the Council and Mr B.
32. In its final response to Mr B, the Council says it has a contract with the DVLA to obtain registered keeper details. It is my current view the wording of this letter misled Mr B into believing the DVLA gave the Council his details as a registered keeper.
33. The Council has since said it did not obtain Mr B’s details from the DVLA, but from the company that sold the car.
34. Mr B sought evidence from the DVLA himself, and it was confirmed to him by the DVLA the car was not registered at his address.
35. This caused further confusion and distress to Mr B. This was fault by the Council, and it could have taken steps better explain to Mr B how it obtained his details.
36. The Council has since agreed that it will be clearer when explaining to people how their details have been obtained for a PCN.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. The Council has agreed that, within 4 weeks of my final decision, it will

• Write to Mr B and apologise for not appropriately handling communication about the PCN’s and its handling of his complaint. The Council will also pay Mr B £250 in recognition of this and provide evidence of doing so.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have now completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council for not appropriately handling communication about PCN’s, and for poor complaint handling. This resulted in delay in resolving the issue and caused Mr B distress.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman