Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her requests for reasonable adjustments so she could challenge the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) it had issued in a way that met her needs. The Council does not appear to have had due regard for Miss X’s needs due to her disabilities as it failed to ask how it could meet her specific needs. It also took too long to respond to her complaints. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payment to remedy the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to Miss X by these faults. It will also provide guidance and training to relevant staff.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her requests for reasonable adjustments so she could challenge it issuing her with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) in a way that met her needs. Miss X says the Council ignored her repeated requests for reasonable adjustments throughout the process of challenging the PCN and then denied this disadvantaged Miss X in any way. Miss X felt belittled, humiliated and distressed by the Council’s treatment. She would like the Council to cancel the PCN and apologise for the significant distress it caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I have spoken to Miss X and considered the evidence she has provided in support of her concerns.
8. I have considered the information the Council has provided in response to my enquiries.
9. Miss 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

Penalty Charge Notices

10. Councils have powers to issue penalty charge notices (PCNs) to people if they do not follow parking and moving traffic rules. After issuing a PCN, the law sets out further steps councils must take to recover the penalty charge. These steps also give people opportunities to challenge the PCN.
11. The Council’s website includes an online portal which motorists can use to either pay the PCN or appeal it if they consider the PCN has been issued incorrectly.

Reasonable Adjustments

12. The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on bodies that carry out a public function. It aims to ensure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
13. The duty is to make adjustments by taking steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing that service. If adjustments are reasonable, they must be made.
14. The duty is 'anticipatory'. This means that a council cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use the service. Instead, they must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need, such as people who have a visual impairment, a hearing impairment, mobility impairment or a learning disability.
15. The Ombudsman can look at whether a council has considered making reasonable adjustments. We cannot decide if an adjustment is reasonable or if there has been a breach of law. This is something only the courts can determine.
16. The Council’s website contains information about how it meets its public sector equality duty. This includes details of the Council’s objective to ‘improve the accessibility of our events, meetings, information and communications.’

What happened

17. This is a timeline of key events and does not cover everything that has happened.
18. Miss X is diagnosed with health conditions that mean she has a blue badge to enable her to park her car in places that might normally be restricted. On 6 September 2022, a Council Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) issued Miss X with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for stopping her vehicle in a street where waiting and loading/unloading are restricted.
19. Miss X was distressed by the behaviour of the CEO, who she says hid before issuing the PCN and laughed at her. Miss X called the Council immediately after receiving the PCN to challenge this but did not give her name or contact details. Miss X also emailed the Council to complain about the CEO’s behaviour and that no grace period had been given to allow her to move her vehicle. Miss X said the Council was obliged to provide extra time to those with disabilities as a reasonable adjustment.
20. The Council replied to Miss X’s emails the following day and confirmed it would consider her challenge against the PCN. The Council also explained its corporate complaint process could not be used to raise concerns about staff behaviour. The Council committed to providing Miss X with a response to her email of 7 September 2022 by 21 September 2022.
21. On 22 September 2022, the Council emailed Miss X and explained that no grace period was applicable for loading/unloading areas and the CEO had acted correctly when they immediately issued Miss X with the PCN. The Council directed Miss X to the corporate complaint process if she wished to complain about the CEO’s behaviour. Miss X responded and continued to raise concerns about the Council’s failure to make reasonable adjustments.
22. The Council replied the following day and explained it had rejected her complaint, but would be dealing with her concerns as a further appeal against the PCN. It responded to the appeal on 30 September 2022 and reiterated its earlier response about there being no grace periods for loading/unloading areas. It again told Miss X to make a corporate complaint about the CEO’s behaviour. Miss X responded straight away and told the Council it was acting unlawfully because it had not allowed her to make her appeal against the PCN by telephone. Miss X explained she had autism and dyslexia which made it very difficult for her to make a written appeal.
23. The Council acknowledged Miss X’s stage one complaint about its handling on 4 October 2022, saying it would reply by 28 October 2022. The Council emailed Miss X on 27 October, 22 November and 12 December 2022 to advise her its complaint response would be delayed. On 13 December 2022, the Council responded to Miss X’s stage one complaint. It did not uphold her complaints about its handling of the PCN but did apologise for the delay in responding to her complaint.
24. Miss X made an appeal against the PCN to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) around the same time in December 2022. Miss X says TPT staff helped her with making her appeal verbally as a reasonable adjustment.
25. Miss X’s appeal to the TPT was heard in late February 2023 and was unsuccessful. The TPT explained the Council’s submission was that Miss X had not been disadvantaged by not being able to challenge the PCN by telephone. The Council also said it was not aware of Miss X’s request to appeal by telephone until the end of September 2022. Miss X paid the PCN fine of £70 shortly after her unsuccessful appeal.
26. Miss X made a further complaint to the Council about its handling on 14 February 2023. On this occasion, she complained about the Council’s submission to the TPT.
27. The Council responded to this complaint on 15 March 2023. It explained it believed Miss X was able to access the process to challenge the PCN in writing and had not been disadvantaged by not having the chance to appeal by telephone/verbally. The Council explained it could not cancel the PCN as the TPT had now confirmed it had been correctly issued.
28. Miss X brought her concerns about the Council’s handling to us because she remained dissatisfied.

Was there fault causing injustice?

Reasonable adjustments

29. Both Miss X and the Council appear to accept there is no record of Miss X requesting reasonable adjustments in her first contact with the Council following receipt of the PCN.
30. Miss X did however shortly after this telephone contact, email the Council on several occasions and highlighted it had failed to make reasonable adjustments when the PCN was issued. While the Council’s position about there being no grace period for parking in restricted areas may be correct, it appears to have overlooked its duty to provide reasonable adjustments when a user of its service has highlighted access needs due to a disability.
31. I have seen no evidence to show the Council at any point in its interaction with Miss X about the PCN, has asked her what her specific needs are or indeed what reasonable adjustments she may require.
32. In response to my enquiries, the Council has said it has tried to assist Miss X by highlighting key information in written contact with her in bold type font. I note however the Council only started to do this earlier this year.
33. The Council has failed to have due regard to Miss X’s specific needs due to her disabilities and its duty under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments. It appears to have made assumptions about the changes that would meet Miss X’s needs, without seeking any details from her. This fault and contrary to the approach recommended in our focus report - Equal Access: Getting it right for people with disabilities – published May 2022, which warns councils against imposing adjustments without considering individual needs. This fault caused Miss X significant distress and was in stark contrast to the steps she says the TPT took when it made adjustments for Miss X’s PCN appeal.
34. The Council’s submission to the TPT that Miss X was not disadvantaged by not being able to challenge the PCN by telephone/verbally is also concerning and further added to Miss X’s distress. Neither the Council nor Miss X have any way of now knowing whether the outcome of Miss X’s challenge would have been different if she had been able to submit her representations verbally. The uncertainty this creates for Miss X could have been entirely avoided if the Council had sought to consider making the specific adjustments Miss X had requested.

Complaint handling

35. The Council’s corporate complaint process states it will respond to most complaints in 20 working days and may take 30 working days for more complex cases. In Miss X’s case, the Council took 52 working days to respond to her complaint, which is fault. This caused Miss X significant distress as there is evidence of several emails from her chasing the Council for its response, in which she says she has experienced panic attacks as a result of the delay.
36. In this case, the Council has not only been significantly delayed in responding to Miss X’s complaints, it has given her conflicting and contradictory advice about whether she could complain under its corporate complaints process.
37. At various points from the start of the Council’s interaction with Miss X about the PCN, it has repeatedly told her she can and then cannot use its corporate complaint process to complain about the CEO’s behaviour. The Council also appears to have rejected and then accepted such complaints.
38. The Council’s responses to Miss X’s complaints have then failed to address her concerns that the CEO hid and laughed at her when they issued the PCN. This has no doubt added to Miss X’s feelings the Council was ignoring and/or belittling her concerns.
39. In response to our enquiries, the case records indicate there is no camera footage to show what happened when the CEO issued the PCN. While I accept this lack of independent evidence makes it difficult for the Council to comment on the CEO’s conduct at the time, I am concerned the Council has failed to explain this to Miss X within its complaint responses.
40. I understand Miss X’s reasons for wanting the PCN cancelled. This is not an outcome we can provide as we are not an appeals process that can overturn the decision made by the TPT in Miss X’s case.
41. I hope that the other recommendations I have made below go some way to remedying the injustice caused to Miss X by the faults I have identified in her case.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. Within one month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• apologise to Miss X for the distress, uncertainty and frustration caused by the faults identified in this decision statement; and,
• pay £200 to Miss X in recognition of the significant injustice caused to her by its faults.

43. Within three months of my final decision, the Council agrees to:

• produce clear guidance for relevant staff on how and when to consider whether they need to make any reasonable adjustments for service users. This should include, for example, asking the service user if the Council needs to make any adjustments in the way it communicates with them to ensure the person can fully access its service. This guidance should incorporate the advice set out in our focus report – Equal Access: Getting it right for people with disabilities – published May 2022; and,
• share this decision with relevant staff members.

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

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have completed my investigation and uphold Miss X’s complaint. She was caused injustice by the Council’s faults which it has agreed to take action to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman