Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments to help him challenge a penalty charge notice he received. We found there was fault causing injustice when the Council failed to engage with Mr X about his requests for reasonable adjustments. The Council agreed to cancel the penalty charge notice and pay Mr X a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments to help him challenge a penalty charge notice (PCN) he received.
2. Mr X said he made representations, which the Council dismissed. He did not understand the process, and struggles to get his point across in writing due to his learning disability and dyslexia. He could not find help on the Council’s website, so he emailed the Council asking for reasonable adjustments. He also asked the Council to supply evidence of the parking offence and to telephone him. He is unhappy the Council ignored his requests. This caused frustration and distress.
3. Mr X complained the Council then instructed enforcement agents to recover a debt from him, causing significant further distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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

6. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
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

Reasonable adjustments

9. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
10. Direct discrimination occurs when a person treats another less favourably than they treat or would treat others because of a protected characteristic.
11. Indirect discrimination may occur when a service provider applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage.
12. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure 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. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
14. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

What happened

15. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
16. The Council issued Mr X a PCN in November 2022.
17. Mr X challenged the PCN online. He said no offence occurred.
18. The Council rejected Mr X’s challenge. It said an officer observed Mr X’s car parked in a loading bay for ten minutes with no activity and he did not return to the car.
19. Mr X emailed the Council twice in December 2022. In the first email he said he was very confused with the PCN process. He asked the Council for reasonable adjustments to manage his learning disability and help him challenge the PCN. He gave his telephone number.
20. In the second email, Mr X referred to his previous email and provided a screenshot of the Council’s decision. He said there were no images of the alleged offence. He also said the Council did not provide evidence an officer waited ten minutes. He asked the Council what was happening with his request for reasonable adjustments to challenge the PCN.
21. The Council did not reply, so Mr X emailed again in January 2023, asking someone to telephone him.
22. The Council did not telephone Mr X, but an officer emailed him on 10 February 2023. The officer said Mr X made an informal challenge, which the Council declined. They said if Mr X wanted to challenge further, he could have done so at the Notice to Owner stage. The officer said Mr X could wait to receive a Recovery Order, or pay a discounted rate of £65 to settle the PCN.
23. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council in September 2023, about its failure to provide him with reasonable adjustments to challenge the PCN.
24. In its first complaint response, the Council asked Mr X to confirm what reasonable adjustments he referred to.
25. The Council said Mr X made an informal challenge online, which it rejected, and told him to either pay the PCN or wait for the Notice to Owner to make further representations. Mr X did not pay or make any representations, so the Council progressed the PCN and instructed enforcement agents.
26. Mr X told the Council he asked for a telephone call as a reasonable adjustment to contest the PCN. He said the Council failed to provide reasonable adjustments for a year. He was not complaining about the PCN, but the Council’s failure to provide support to contest the PCN. He asked the Council to telephone him to better understand.
27. The Council said it had no record of Mr X requesting reasonable adjustments or assistance. The only telephone record it had was from May 2023 where its customer services offered Mr X a discounted payment of £65.
28. The Council also said Mr X did not mention needing assistance when he challenged the PCN online. It acknowledged Mr X communicated with its complaint department about reasonable adjustments since December 2022, but it said he did not specify what assistance he needed.
29. The Council said the amount outstanding was £204. However, in the circumstances, it offered to reduce this to £65 to resolve the PCN.
30. Mr X remained dissatisfied and asked the Council to re-consider his complaint.
31. The Council sent its final complaint response in November 2023. It said:
• Mr X requested reasonable adjustments, but it was not clear what reasonable adjustments he required.
• Mr X made an informal challenge, so it would be reasonable to expect he could also make a formal challenge. The Council gave details of this with the Notice to Owner document it sent to Mr X.
• Following Mr X’s emails asking for reasonable adjustments, no one from the Council telephoned him. The Council apologised for this. However, it said it sent a written response instead.
• There are ways people can contact the Council if they have difficulties, and the Council provides details on its website. It also made online support available to help motorists with the appeals process.
• Its parking services feel adequate support is available for people making appeals. Recently, the Council took representations by telephone if people have difficulties writing or with their sight. The Council is looking into this and may expand on it in future.
• It found no fault in the way it issued the PCN. It then progressed the PCN under statutory parking legislation.
• It will accept £65 to end the matter as it issued the PCN correctly.

My investigation

32. Mr X told us the Council accepted it made mistakes in its complaint response, but it did not apologise. Instead, it referred to the things Mr X should have done and signposted him to a section of its website about reasonable adjustments. Mr X said the Council failed to give him this information at any time before his complaint, when he was asking the Council for reasonable adjustments.
33. Mr X visited the Council’s website, but found nothing about reasonable adjustments. He therefore wrote an email to the Council requesting help. He wanted the Council to provide adjustments to help him with the formal appeals process.
34. Mr X said the Council will now take appeals by telephone, but it did not provide this service to him, despite his requests. Mr X said the Council did not give him the opportunity to appeal properly and fundamentally disregarded his right to appeal.
35. In response to my enquiries, the Council was unable to provide me with a copy of Mr X’s informal PCN challenge. It was also unable to provide any evidence from its enforcement officer.
36. The Council did not respond to my question about whether it was satisfied it met its duties under the Equality Act.

Analysis

37. Mr X said he could not see photographs of the alleged parking offence. He asked the Council to provide this evidence, as well as asking for reasonable adjustments, and evidence an enforcement officer waited ten minutes for him to return. The Council failed to engage with any of those points. That was fault.
38. Mr X asked for reasonable adjustments twice in December 2022. The Council failed to engage with those requests. That was fault.
39. Mr X asked for a telephone call in January 2023. While the Council did respond by email in February 2023, that was not sufficient, and it was already too late to help Mr X make a formal appeal. The response failed to engage with Mr X about his request for reasonable adjustments and did not try to understand his circumstances. That was fault.
40. Throughout its complaint correspondence, the Council referred to Mr X’s failure to state what reasonable adjustments he needed. This is poor practice and ignores the duty incumbent upon the Council to engage with people about reasonable adjustments. The Equality Act is clear that councils’ duties are anticipatory. Councils must be positive and proactive and not wait for someone to tell them what adjustments they need.
41. The Council should have asked Mr X about his disability at the outset, such as how it affects him, what difficulties he faces, and what help he needed. The Council’s failure to do so was fault.
42. The Council’s complaint response also focused on the fact it considers it correctly issued the PCN and followed the correct process. That is irrelevant. Everyone is entitled to challenge a PCN, whether the correct process is followed or not. Mr X asked for help to do this, citing his disability, but the Council failed to properly consider his request. That was why Mr X complained and that is what the Council’s complaint response should have focused on.
43. The Council assumed Mr X could have made a formal appeal, as he was able to make an informal challenge. The Council was not in a position to make this assumption, as it had not engaged with Mr X about his disability. If it had done so, the Council may then have decided whether it was reasonable or not to provide Mr X further help.
44. I understand from the Council’s complaint response that it will now consider taking appeals by telephone, as a reasonable adjustment. However, I found its PCN appeals webpage states you cannot appeal by telephone. The webpage does contain a banner signposting people to a different webpage if they have a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. This should make it easier for people to contact the Council to request reasonable adjustments in future.
45. However, it is concerning the number of times Mr X asked the Council for reasonable adjustments without receiving a response about this. This is a training issue for the Council to pick up with its staff.

Injustice

46. Mr X asked the Council for its evidence of the alleged parking offence. He also asked for help understanding the PCN process and making an appeal. Unfortunately, the Council did not respond or engage with Mr X about his request for reasonable adjustments. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration and distress, and a sense of helplessness.
47. If the Council had engaged with Mr X about his disability promptly, it could have helped him understand the process and make a formal appeal. This could have avoided the need to instruct enforcement agents, which caused further unnecessary distress and worry.
48. When the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint, it still failed to properly engage with him about his request for reasonable adjustments. And I do not consider the Council’s offer to reduce the PCN fee goes any way towards suitably addressing the injustice Mr X suffered.
49. In circumstances where we find there was fault causing injustice in the PCN process, we normally ask councils to restart the process. However, in this case, given the Council’s significant failure to engage with Mr X about reasonable adjustments at any stage, and given the significant distress this will have caused, I consider the Council should cancel the PCN and waive the outstanding charges.

Back to top

Agreed action

50. Within four weeks of my final decision the Council agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X for failing to engage with him about his request for reasonable adjustments. The Council’s apology should acknowledge the fact Mr X made this request several times, and the Council failed in its duty under the Equality Act.
• Pay Mr X £350 to recognise the avoidable frustration and distress its failings caused.
• Cancel the PCN and waive the outstanding charges.
51. Within twelve weeks of my final decision the Council agreed to organise refresher training for staff about their responsibilities, and the Council’s duties, under the Equality Act to minimise the risk of recurrence.
52. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

53. I completed my investigation. I found there was fault causing injustice when the Council failed to engage with Mr X about his requests for reasonable adjustments.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman