Summary: Mr X complained he received an incomplete and incorrect Penalty Charge Notice which he was unable to challenge due to a lack of information and because the Council’s website was not working. The intermittent problems with the Council’s website do not amount to fault causing Mr X a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X complained he received an incomplete and incorrect Penalty Charge Notice which he was unable to challenge due to a lack of information and because the Council’s website was not working.
2. Mr X complained he tried numerous times to speak to someone at the Council and was passed between services, as officers were unable to assist him. When he did speak to an officer they told him they had noticed the previous day that the website was not working and had asked for it to be reported. A second officer confirmed there were problems with the website in January 2023 and that Mr X should have been given an email address to contact.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Mr X;
• 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

What happened here

6. In December 2022 Mr X received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Although the PCN should be two double sided pages, Mr X’s copy only had text on the front pages and the backs were blank. The blank pages should have included details of how to make representation, data protection information and photographs of the infraction.
7. Mr X tried to obtain details of the PCN via the Council’s website on 23 December 2022 but says the page was not working. He then telephoned the Council and says he was passed between services and officers who could not assist him. When he eventually spoke to an officer in parking services they attempted to access the website page and confirmed it was not working. Mr X recorded the call and has provided an extract in which the officer confirmed they had noticed the website was not working the previous day and had reported it. The officer expected this to be reported to the IT department so that it could be fixed.
8. The Council’s notes of the call state the officer advised Mr X to write to parking services or to try online later that day. The notes also record the website would be reported to ICT.
9. Later that day Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council about the difficulties he had experienced in trying to contact the Council. The Council responded on 10 January 2023 and told Mr X that its customer service officers are all highly trained and capable of dealing with enquiries in relation to a PCN. It accepted it was an inconvenience to be unable to make representations online, however it had checked the website and found customers could make representations online.
10. The Council also explained that representations and appeals against PCNs were governed by regulations set down by the Traffic Management Act 2004. This legislation dictated that the validity of a PCN is determined by designated officers within the parking section. The Council advised Mr X to make representations against the PCN via the Council’s website as soon as possible.
11. Mr X disputed being able to speak to a customer service officer in relation to PCNs. He asserted that all options on the Council’s telephone system resulted in an information message and the was no option to speak to a person. He also questioned how he could make representations when he did not have the complete PCN. Mr X contacted the Council again on 19 January 2023 having received a charging certificate. The records of this call show Mr X was given an email address for parking services.
12. The Council reviewed Mr X’s complaint and responded on 25 January 2023. It said the original PCN would have advised how to make an online appeal and the initial complaint response also included this information. The Council noted Mr X was now too late to register formal representations as a charge certificate had been issued. It explained this meant Mr X had lost the right to make a challenge and the Council no longer had an obligation to respond to his correspondence.
13. The Council also advised there had been no issues with the website and suggested Mr X had difficulties in navigating to the correct location and just needed further exploration to find the page to submit his challenge.
14. Mr X disputed the factual accuracy of the Council’s response and asserted the PCN should be cancelled. He said the person he was travelling with held a blue badge and the vehicle was registered as having a disabled resident permit. As such he would have had no reason not to appeal the PCN and have the ticket cancelled if the Council had provided the required information.
15. The Council confirmed it had reviewed the video evidence of the blank pages on the PCN but did not consider this negated the notice. It informed Mr X that as the time frame to appeal had now passed if he still wished to challenge the PCN he would need to file a witness statement when the Order for Recovery was sent to him. The Traffic Enforcement Team would then make an independent decision.
16. The Council then cancelled the PCN on 26 January 2023. It says its parking team received email correspondence between 19 and 24 January 2023 which included a copy of the blue badge.
17. Although the PCN has been cancelled, Mr X has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint as the process put him to unnecessary time and trouble and caused significant frustration.
18. In response to my enquiries the Council says it issued and served over 31,000 statutory notices in December 2022 and received only one other complaint about an incomplete single sided PCN. It raised the issue with its printing service who advised it was not viable for the document to be printed one sided. They were unable to explain how Mr X had received an incomplete notice.
19. The Council has provided documentation showing it received online parking representations between 22 and 24 December 2022. There were 136 online contacts on 22 December, 75 on 23 December, and 35 on 24 December 2022. The Council confirmed there were issues reported between 28 December 2022 and 5 January 2023 but these were resolved. The Council also notes that Mr X successfully made an online representation in relation to a different PCN on 2 January 2023.

Analysis

20. Although Mr X experienced difficulties in the process, he has ultimately been able to challenge the charge, and the Council has cancelled the PCN.
21. The extent of any problems with the Council’s website in late December 2022 and January 2023 is unclear, but the information available suggests there were at least intermittent problems. Mr X’s recording of his telephone conversation on 23 December 2022 shows officers were aware of problems with the website in recent days and that it had been reported to the IT department. Similarly his recording of his telephone conversation on 19 January 2023 shows the Council was aware of ongoing issues and officers were now providing an email address to contact parking services.
22. However, the documentation also shows the Council received 246 online contacts between 22 and 24 December 2022. It has not provided any context to these figures so it is unclear how these compare to typical daily online contacts/ typical contacts in the days before Christmas. But these contacts show the website was working some of the time.
23. I recognise that Mr X was frustrated at being unable to make representations online but note that it was open to him to submit his representation to the Council in the post. Although Mr X did not receive the page of the PCN detailing how to make representations, the postal address for parking correspondence was included in the information he did receive. And details of the information required to make representations and the process is also available on the Council’s website.
24. I also note that Mr X was able to make online representations in relation to another PCN in early January 2023. This was within the timeframe allowed for making representations on the PCN which is the subject of this complaint and suggests Mr X could have also made representation on this PCN at the same time.
25. It is unfortunate that there were problems with the Council’s online service, but I do not consider his amounts to fault or that it has caused Mr X a significant injustice as there were other options available to him to make representations. Mr X has not had to pay the original or any increased charge as the PCN has been cancelled.

Back to top

Final decision

26. The intermittent problems with the Council’s website do not amount to fault causing Mr X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman