Summary: Mr X complains about Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) and enforcement action. We do not find fault with the Council, which followed the correct procedures.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:

• Failed to advise him of his parking permit application refusal.
• Later issued him PCNs.
• Impounded and destroyed his car while he was abroad.

2. Mr X says this caused him distress, time and trouble trying to resolve the matter. It also caused him a financial loss.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. Mr X complained to us in June 2021, which was 18 months after the alleged fault, so his complaint is a late one. However, I have investigated it as his alleged injustice involves significant debt. Also, English is not Mr X’s first language, and he has been living in the UK for a short while and only found out about us through a charity.
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)

How I considered this complaint

6. I reviewed the information provided and spoke to Mr X about the complaint. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
7. I considered relevant law, guidance, and the Council’s website for its policy on parking fines.
8. Mr X and the Council Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I carefully considered all the comments I received.

What I found

Law and guidance

9. If a person parks in breach of parking rules, a penalty charge notice (PCN) may follow.
10. The Council’s website states an informal challenge against a PCN should be in writing within 14 days of 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.
11. 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.
12. If the Council rejects the appeal, the fine remains due, or the owner must appeal to an independent adjudicator. In London, a motorist must appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators (ETA).
13. The Council may remove and impound a car if parked dangerously, contravening parking controls, or causing a serious obstruction.
14. A motorist must pay charges to release the car or agree for it to destroyed.
15. A motorist can appeal against the car’s removal and against any PCNs within 28 days of collecting their vehicle.

What happened

16. Mr X usually renews his parking permit in person at the Council’s offices. In 2019 the system changed, and the Council told him to renew online.
17. Mr X was moving home. His logbook and insurance documents did not match his new address, so he could not renew his permit. The permit expired before he could renew it and he received a PCN.
18. Mr X says he went to the Council’s offices and was given temporary permit scratch cards to use till his new documents arrived.

Parking Permit Applications

19. Mr X’s amended logbook and insurance documents arrived showing his new address. In August he tried to renew his permit online. He said he received an email telling him he had not been successful.
20. Mr X therefore tried a second time. He says he believed he was successful because the portal provided him with a temporary parking permit number. Mr X put the number in his car window. He told me he expected to receive a paper permit in the post as had happened previously.
21. Mr X says he did not receive any correspondence to say his application had been refused. He says he was unsure if he checked his junk mail at the time. However, when he started receiving PCNs he re-checked and did not find anything from the Council.
22. A few weeks later, Mr X noticed the paper permit had not arrived. He became concerned and spoke with an enforcement officer. Mr X says the officer told him the Council no longer issued paper permits and now had digital permits. He says the same officer checked his number plate on a device and said Mr X was fine to park. Mr X therefore removed the temporary parking permit number card, assuming he now had a valid digital permit.
23. Mr X said he did not receive any PCNs throughout September and October which reinforced his belief that he had a valid permit.

Penalty Charge Notices

24. In November, Mr X received further PCNs. In total, Mr X received 10 tickets between July 2020 and January 2021. Six of these remain payable.
25. Mr X said the Council’s customer services team advised him to contact the parking enforcement team. He said he rang many times but could not get through. When he did manage to speak to an officer, he found them unhelpful and felt they did not understand his situation.
26. Mr X therefore formally challenged the November tickets before going abroad at end of December. The Council later rejected his submissions.

Vehicle scrapped

27. In January 2020, Mr X found out his car had been impounded while he was still abroad. He spoke with the pound trying to understand the situation. He also called the Council to speak with the parking enforcement team but could not get through.
28. Mr X says the pound advised him he had received further PCNs for not having a valid permit and so his car was removed. Mr X says this is the first time he found out his parking application had been refused.
29. Mr X says he decided to scrap his car because he could not afford the storage and release fees which were higher than the car’s value. He says he was very distressed, he had to pay for international calls, and it ruined his holiday.

Appeal

30. On his return, Mr X sent formal representations which included the history I have set out above as grounds of appeal. The Council rejected his submissions.
31. The evidence from the Council shows Mr X was sent Notice to Owner (NTO) rejection letters for each formal representation. At the bottom of the letter there is information about his right to appeal to the ETA with the specific code required to log the appeal. Mr X told me he did not know about the ETA until much later in the year. He was unsure if he received the Council’s letters. Mr X’s English is adequate but from January 2020, his girlfriend Miss Y assisted him.
32. Mr X said Miss Y called the Council on many occasions in 2020, to try and resolve the situation. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, they found the phone lines engaged or not answered. When they did get through Mr X said the officers were unwilling to listen to their explanations and promised to call back but never did anything.
33. The couple asked the Mayor for help and he wrote to the Council. The Council responded as follows:

• Mr X incurred the PCNs because he did not have a valid permit and his formal representations had been rejected.
• Mr X failed to appeal to the ETA and was still liable for the total PCN costs of £1143.
• Mr X had been offered a discounted rate and agreed to pay the outstanding PCN charges in six instalments.
• Mr X had not paid anything and unless he kept to the instalment plan the Council intended to enforce the debt.

34. Mr X said he initially agreed to pay as he felt overwhelmed, but later realised he could not afford it. He said he could not afford to take legal advice, but a debt relief charity told him about the Ombudsman. He then bought his complaint to us in June 2021.
35. In response to my further investigation enquiries the Council provided:

• A copy of a parking permit application rejection letter which was sent by first class post to Mr X saying it had refused his application because he selected the wrong price.
• A copy of the email sent to Mr X which was also sent after his application was refused which also contained a copy of the same letter. The letter advised Mr X to make a new application selecting the correct price. It also said any Application Reference Number would no longer be valid and he could get a parking ticket.
• A single record of a telephone call from Mr X in January 2020 where he was advised to contact the permit team directly.
• Records of written contact between the Mayor and Mr X.
• Record of parking permit applications showing the first application cancelled and the second declined due to the incorrect price. It also shows a fee refund.

36. Mr X told me he did not notice the fee refund in his bank account as it was only for £50 and was among many transactions.

Analysis

(i) The Council failed to inform Mr X his parking permit application had been refused.

37. The Council has provided a copy of the letter sent to Mr X by both post and email which confirms his application refusal with a clear reason. It also advises that any temporary application reference number was no longer valid, he could receive PCNs and that he should re-apply with the correct banding. Mr X either did not receive the letter or failed to identify it as non-junk mail which required his attention. This was unfortunate but not fault by the Council. The Council also refunded the permit fee back to Mr X’s account which should have also alerted him to the issue. The fact Mr X did not notice the refund is not the Council’s fault.
38. Mr X says a patrol officer checked his number plate and confirmed he was fine to park. As there is no evidence to confirm the context, it is not enough for me to find fault by the Council. Mr X could also have gone to the Council’s office himself to ask for a check of his permit status. This would have ensured accurate information and a record of his enquiry.
39. Mr X felt his lack of PCNs in September and October suggested he had a valid permit. But this was just a coincidence that he did not receive further tickets during these two months.

(ii) The Council issued Mr X Parking Charge Notices (PCNs).

40. The Council issued Mr X with multiple PCN’s. There is no fault because Mr X did not have a valid permit and the Council had advised him of this.
41. I consider the Council followed the correct steps in the PCN enforcement correspondence by:
• Allowing Mr X the right to challenge each PCN directly.
• Offering to reduce Mr X’s PCN charges when rejecting his representations.
• Giving his appeal rights.

(iii) The Council removed and impounded his car and pursued him for the debt.

42. I accept some of Mr X’s difficulties arose because English is not his first language. And he was used to attending the Council’s office in person to renew his permit. However, the Council was entitled to change the system to a digital one and there are no grounds for me to criticise this despite Mr X’s language difficulties.
43. Mr X’s car was impounded because he had parked it without a valid permit, and he had outstanding PCNs which had not been paid. The Council was within its rights to proceed with enforcement and there are no grounds for me to criticise it.
44. Mr X spoke to the pound and on his return to the UK decided he had no option but to allow his car to be scrapped. I appreciate he needed to pay the release and storage fees to exercise any right of appeal. Mr X took a value decision not to reclaim his car as it was not worth it. But he could have recouped these costs if he had chosen to appeal and been successful.
45. When Mr X failed to pay, the Council rightfully obtained liability orders to enforce the debt. When Mr X continued to park in breach of the controls, they took his vehicle which he eventually agreed to destroy. The Council followed the correct process and while this clearly had an impact on Mr X, I am satisfied there was no fault.

Final decision

46. I find no fault in the way the Council issued PCNs to Mr X, considered his appeals, removed, impounded and later destroyed his vehicle.
47. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman