Summary: Ms D says the Council failed to consider her representations about a penalty charge notice in 2021. The Ombudsman has found some fault by the Council but no significant injustice to Ms D, he has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council failed to consider her representations about a penalty charge notice (PCN) in October 2021. She also says the Council has not considered her complaint about debt enforcement agents.

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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information provided by Ms D and I asked the Council questions.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. The Council issued a PCN to Ms D on 29 July 2021. It received no payment or response so a Notice to Owner was then sent in September followed by a Charge Certificate in October. On 25 October the Council received a letter from Ms D. She had not been aware of parking restrictions and offered to pay the PCN off at £5 per month. She referred to having a medical condition. The Council replied the same day that she had exceeded the time period to appeal, and payment should be made.
7. In February 2022 the Council issued an Order for Recovery, this advised Ms D she could pay or file a statement with the Traffic Enforcement Centre. In May the debt was registered with a debt enforcement agent. At the end of June Ms D complained to the Council about the enforcement agents. In July the enforcement agent responded to Ms D’s complaint.

What should have happened

8. When a vehicle owner breaks a parking restriction the Council can issue a PCN. The vehicle owner can make an informal challenge if they want to contest the PCN, this should be done online or by post within 28 days of the PCN being issued. If the Council rejects this challenge (or does not receive a challenge) it issues a Notice to Owner. The vehicle owner can then make a formal representation on statutory grounds. The Council, if it does not accept the representations/ receives no contact will issue a Charge Certificate. The Council still has the discretionary power to consider representations and cancel a PCN if believes there are valid reasons (as set out in the Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities on Civil Enforcement of Parking Restrictions). The next stage on enforcement is to issue an Order for Recovery. This should notify the vehicle owner they can appeal the PCN to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. If no appeal or payment is made the case will progress to court to be a registered debt and passed to enforcement agents to obtain payment.
9. Complaints about enforcement agents are usually dealt with by the debt enforcement company in the first instance.

Was there fault by the Council

10. There is fault by the Council. It’s response to Ms D in October 2021 is incorrect. It told her she exceeded the timeframe to appeal the PCN. In fact, the Council had discretion to still consider any representations made contesting a PCN at that point. However, Ms D did not make a clear representation for the Council to take forward at that point, she made no mention of contesting the validity of the PCN and indeed offered to pay. A person must either challenge a PCN or pay the fee, they cannot do both.
11. There is no duty on the Council to allow payment for a PCN in instalments. There is no fault in this matter.
12. The Council also failed to address the concerns raised by Ms D about the behaviour of enforcement agents. It explained in its complaint reply that she needed to contact the agents about the debt but did not explain how the issues about behaviour would be considered. As it was, the enforcement agents formally considered that complaint and responded in July to Ms D. However, the Council should have explained the process for how complaints about the actions of agents are handled and how to escalate a stage two complaint if Ms D remained dissatisfied.

Did the fault cause an injustice

13. In respect of the PCN Ms D never clearly challenged it with the Council. In addition, she had the chance to appeal the PCN after she received the Order for Recovery which she failed to use. The Ombudsman would consider it reasonable for people to exercise those rights of appeal. Regarding the Council failing to explain how complaints about enforcement agents are handled, again I do not see this caused a significant injustice to Ms D. She complained direct to the enforcement agents who responded.
14. I do not see there is a significant injustice to Ms D that requires redress by the Council. However, the Council has agreed to learn from this case and to notify Ms D how she can escalate her complaint about the enforcement agents if she remains dissatisfied.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman