Summary: We found fault in the way the Council handled the complainant’s (Mr X) Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) after his registration plate was cloned. This resulted in the enforcement action against Mr X, which caused him and his wife prolonged and severe distress. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and to make a payment of £500 to recognise the negative impact of the Council’s fault on Mr X and his family.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed by continuing enforcement of several PCNs after he had told the Council his number plate was cloned. He successfully challenged one PCN before the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) but says the Council failed to make connections with other PCNs issued against him.
2. Mr X says the enforcement action carried out despite the lack of contraventions on his part caused him and his wife distress and affected their relationship and well-being. It lasted for many months before the Council considered evidence and cancelled all remaining PCNs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the response it provided.
7. I reviewed ‘Birmingham City Council Guidelines for the consideration of representations and cancellation of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued for being in a Clean Air Zone (CAZ)’ version 3.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative framework

The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement)(England) Regulations 2013 (Regulations)

9. Where a council accepts the grounds provided in the Regulations have been established or there are compelling reasons, why in the particular circumstances of the case the penalty charge notice should be cancelled it must cancel the penalty charge notice. (The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement)(England) Regulations 2013 regulation 9(1))

‘Principles of good administrative practice’ by Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman

10. When performing their public functions the councils should be:
• Service-user focused; responding to service users’ needs flexibly and, where appropriate, coordinating a response with other service providers;
• Open and accountable:
1. Stating the criteria for decision making and giving reasons for decisions;
2. Handling information properly and appropriately;
3. Keeping proper and appropriate records;
4. Taking responsibility for actions.

What happened

11. Between third week in June 2021 and the end of July 2021 the Council registered eleven traffic contraventions against Mr X for driving in a clean air zone without paying charges.
12. Consequently the Council issued eleven Penalty Charge Notices, the last one in mid-August 2021.
13. At the end of July Mr X told the Council’s parking team his car registration number had been cloned.
14. Mr X appealed to the Tribunal and during this process one of the PCNs was cancelled. Following the successful appeal Mr X assumed the Council would check and cancel all other PCNs issued against him.
15. The Council started enforcement action for other PCNs, with bailiff coming to Mr X’s property and warning of the possibility of seizing his car.
16. In the beginning of November 2021 Mr X contacted the Council’s complaint team, raising the issue of the PCNs enforcement. On many more occasions in the months to follow he contacted both the parking team and the complaints team asking the Council to confirm he was not responsible for the charges and to stop the enforcement proceedings.
17. The Council formally recognised Mr X’s complaint in the beginning of April 2022.
18. At the end of April the Council provided its stage one response:
• Parking services received no evidence the registration plate was cloned;
• It is too late to make representations;
• Mr X should have provided police incident numbers, authorisation for the Council to get information about these incidents as well as photographs of his car.
19. Not satisfied with the Council’s response Mr X asked to escalate his complaint. In its stage two response the Council said:
• Although Tribunal accepted Mr X’s number plate was cloned, the Council would not automatically apply this to the future PCNs, as it looked at them all individually;
• It was too late for Mr X to make representations at this stage as each case was registered with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). The only way to challenge PCNs would be to provide witness statements, which could be considered by TEC.
20. At the end of August 2022 Mr X complained to us.
21. In August Mr X provided photographs of his car and the Council cancelled all remaining PCNs. The Council told us about it in the end of October 2022.
22. Two weeks later the Council said it did not accept its fault when dealing with Mr X’s PCNs. The Council explained it followed the statutory process as no evidence was forthcoming from Mr X. Once the Council received the evidence, it cancelled all outstanding PCNs.
23. A month later, instead of sending documents sought as part of my enquiries, the Council recognised it failed in the way it handled Mr X’s PCNs. If not for the Council’s failings, the case should have been resolved much sooner. The Council offered Mr X an apology and a payment of £100 as compensation for the poor standard of service.

Analysis

24. The Council accepted its fault in the lack of communication between various teams. This caused a significant delay in resolving the matter of PCNs issued against Mr X.
25. Besides I found inconsistency in the advice provided to Mr X throughout the complaint process. Despite the Council’s duty to cancel PCNs at each stage of the process if there were compelling reasons to do so, the information provided to Mr X in the Council’s complaint responses suggested once PCNs were passed to TEC it was out of the Council’s control. This advice is contrary to the Regulations and could have misled Mr X, which is fault.
26. The Council’s fault caused Mr X and his wife severe distress. For many months they lived aware of the enforcement action carried out against Mr X, with enforcement fees accruing. The penalty charges and enforcement fees for ten outstanding PCNs would be a large sum of money, which Mr X said they could not afford.
27. When considering the Council’s offer of a payment to Mr X to recognise his distress caused by the Council’s faults, I have reviewed our ‘Guidance on good practice: Remedies.’ It says our recommendation for a remedy needs to reflect all the circumstances including:
• The severity of the distress;
• The length of time involved;
• The number of people affected (for example, members of the complainant’s family as well as the complainant).
28. Mr X explained the lack of communication between the Council’s services and the inadequate advice provided to him caused him and his wife severe and prolonged distress. They could not afford to pay PCNs and enforcement costs. For many months they lived under a threat of the enforcement action and having their possessions seized. This was despite Mr X’s many attempts to communicate and explain the circumstances of the matter to the Council. This situation had detrimental effect on Mr X’s family relationships.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, we recommend the Council within four weeks of my final decision complete the following:
• Send a written apology to Mr X;
• Pay Mr X £500 to acknowledge his and his wife’s distress and extra time and trouble necessary to pursue her complaint.

The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

30. We also recommend the Council within three months of the final decision ensure all members of the staff dealing with Penalty Charge Notices and their managers review the Council’s policy ‘Birmingham City Council Guidelines for the consideration of representations and cancellation of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued for being in a Clean Air Zone (CAZ)’ version 3. The Council will provide us with the evidence this has happened.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I uphold this complaint. The Council accepted its fault, which caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has accepted my recommendation, so this investigation is now at an end.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman