Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly issued her with several Penalty Charge Notices after failing to update her parking permit details when she uploaded documents to support this. Miss X also said it did not take her Debt Relief Order into account when pursuing the unpaid Parking Charge Notices. The Council was at fault when it failed to act on receiving the uploaded document and failed to explain what else Miss X needed to do or clarify what else it needed. This caused Miss X distress. It has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains:

• The Council issued her several Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) for parking in a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) when she says she had a valid permit.
• She provided the Council with evidence that she had moved in late 2021 and the Council failed to act on the information.
• The Council pursued unpaid PCNs which formed part of her Debt Relief Order. (DRO)
• The Council’s enforcement agents removed her vehicle despite the existence of the DRO.

2. Miss X said this has caused her distress.

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. 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)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
6. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
7. 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

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have not investigated Miss X’s complaint about the issuing or validity of the PCNs. Miss X had a right of appeal. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London. I have seen no evidence Miss X appealed; however, I believe this would have been reasonable and therefore I will not consider this part of her complaint.
9. I have not investigated Miss X’s complaint about the seizure of her vehicle as this is inextricably linked to the issuing of the PCNs and as stated above Miss X had a right of appeal.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I have considered the correspondence from Miss X, and I have made enquiries with the Council, considering its responses.
11. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Controlled Parking Zones

12. Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) are streets in the borough that prioritise parking for residents, businesses and their visitors at certain times and days of the week. If you do not show a valid permit for the CPZ you are liable to receive a PCN.

Parking enforcement

13. If the Council believes a parking contravention has occurred, it may issue a PCN. (Traffic Management Act 2004, Part 6)
14. Where a council enforcement officer believes a PCN is payable with respect to a stationary vehicle, they can affix a PCN to the vehicle or give this to the driver. (Traffic Management Act 2004, section 78 and The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007, Section 9)
15. The person liable to pay a PCN can either pay the charge or make representations to an enforcement authority. (Traffic Management Act 2004, section 80)
16. If an enforcement authority does not accept a person’s representations, they can appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. (Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) General Regulations, 2007, Section 9)

What happened

17. The Council’s notes show Miss X had access to two vehicles. I will call them vehicle A and Vehicle B. Miss X had a parking permit that allowed her to park in a controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) between 30 April 2021 and 29 April 2022 for vehicle B.
18. Miss X said she provided the Council with her tenancy agreement in early November 2021. Miss X said she believed the Council would update her parking permit on receiving this.
19. Between 12 December 2021 and 15 March 2022, Miss X received five PCNs for vehicle A.
20. Between 24 March 2022 and 20 July 2022, she received a further eight PCNs for vehicle B.
21. In July 2022 enforcement agents acting on behalf of the Council removed Miss X’s car (vehicle B) on two occasions, this was to recover the debt arising from unpaid penalty charges.
22. Around the same time Miss X applied for and was granted a Debt Relief Order (DRO). Her PCNs were included in the order.
23. Miss X said she told the Council about her DRO, however, complained this did not stop it removing her vehicle. To release her vehicle Miss X had to pay a fee.
24. Miss X complained to the Council on 10 October 2022 and said:

• She had notified the Council of a change of address in November 2021.
• The Council had failed to update her permit.
• The Council’s failure had led to her receiving multiple PCNs.
• She had called the Council and it had told her it had updated her parking permit, however, the PCNs were still outstanding.

25. The Council responded on 21 October 2021 at Stage One. It did not uphold her complaint and said:

• Miss X had parked in a permit holder’s bay with an invalid permit.
• Miss X’s appeal against two PCNs issued for vehicle B was unsuccessful.
• It had progressed Miss X’s PCNs to enforcement agents to recover fees.
• Miss X could no longer challenge the PCNs with the Council and had the option of paying the charges or filing an Out of Time Statutory Declaration with the Court.

26. The Council said Miss X told it she had a Debt Relief Order (DRO) in September 2022. However, it said she did not provide it with a copy of the document. Miss X says she sent the DRO in August and there were no clear instructions explaining where to send it.
27. Miss X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s Stage One response. She reiterated her complaint and asked the Council to escalate her concerns to Stage Two in December 2022.
28. The Council confirmed it received a copy of Miss X’s DRO listing the PCNs with her Stage Two request. It said Miss X’s DRO was valid from mid-July 2022 for one year.
29. The Council issued its Stage Two response in early January 2023. It did not uphold her complaint and said there was no evidence it was at fault. It also said:

• The Council could not review the validity of Miss X’s PCNs as she now had a right of appeal to the Court if she wished to challenge them.
• Miss X had parked in a restricted bay without a valid permit.
• All PCNs listed in her DRO had been cancelled with no further action.

30. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in March 2023.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

31. The Council responded to my enquiries in May and September 2023.
32. The Council recognised it had received a tenancy agreement from Miss X on 10 November 2021. However, it said there were no notes detailing what had been done or changed. It also said that it had requested further proof for the change of address in March 2022 and on receiving this had updated Miss X’s permit.
33. The Council said the official receiver was unable to add any additional debt not already included in the DRO. The Council noted Miss X had one outstanding unpaid PCN. It said the outstanding payment was for £100, however, it had reduced this charge to £65.00 until 25 May 2023.

Analysis

34. At the heart of this complaint is Miss X’s assertion that she told the Council in November 2021 to update her parking permit details and provided a proof of address. The Council recognises that Miss X uploaded a tenancy agreement on 10 November 2021. However, it said it did not have sufficient notes to support what it did with this information. I am unable to see what Miss X requested, however, on the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that Miss X intended to update her parking permit by submitting her tenancy agreement. On receiving the documentation, I would have expected the Council to have acted on this and respond to Miss X explaining what it intended to do or clarify the correct procedure Miss X needed to follow. I have seen no evidence it did this and this was fault. This caused Miss X distress. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. By 14 December 2023 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Miss X for failing to act on her uploaded document and for failure to tell her what it required.
• Pay Miss X £100 for distress.
• Share this decision with staff dealing with parking permits and remind them to act when receiving documents.

36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has carried out the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

37. The Council was at fault for failing to act when Miss X uploaded a document and for failing to explain what was required. This caused her distress. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman