Summary: Mrs D complains the Council issued her with incorrect penalty charge notices. We have found some evidence of fault by the Council and have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council agrees to pay Mrs D for her time and trouble.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mrs D) says the Council repeatedly issued incorrect penalty charge notices (PCNs) during 2022 and 2023.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered the information provided by Mrs D and her representative Mr D. I asked the Council questions and examined its response and supporting evidence.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. On 29 November 2022 the Council issued a PCN to Mrs D for her vehicle entering the Clean Air Zone (CAZ) without payment. A further PCN was issued to Mrs D on 1 December with another issued on 6 December. In December Mrs D made representations to the Council explaining her car had not been in the CAZ. The Council checked and found the automatic numberplate reading systems used to generate a PCN had incorrectly read a numberplate. On 28 December the Council notified Mrs D that it had cancelled the three PCNs.
7. The same error continued to occur. Mrs D notified the Council in January 2023 about another two PCNs issued in December. Again, the Council cancelled the PCNs. Later in January Mrs D had to notify the Council about a further three incorrect PCNs she had received. The Council cancelled the PCNs on 16 February.
8. In February Mr and Mrs D complained to the Council about the ongoing mistakes with PCNs. The Council replied on 23 February. It apologised and explained the technology used for checking vehicles was incorrectly reading a numberplate. It confirmed all outstanding PCNs had been cancelled and “you will not receive any more going forward”. It had added Mrs D’s vehicle to the ‘permitted vehicle list’ which meant no more PCNs would be issued. I understand the Council only placed the vehicle on the permitted vehicle list for a limited time. It would appear it came off that list by the start of April because from 5 April Mrs D started to receive more incorrect CAZ PCNs. She received five PCNs in April which the Council cancelled at the start of June.
9. Mr and Mrs D escalated the formal complaint at the end of May. The Council subsequently replied (the response is undated) explaining that PCNs had been issued after the permitted vehicle list had expired. It had now marked the vehicle as exempt for the maximum period allowable on the permitted vehicle list, up to 31 January 2027.
10. On 18 July the Council issued a bus lane contravention notice to Mrs D. She contacted the Council in July explaining the same problem had reoccurred with the reading of a vehicle numberplate. The Council cancelled the PCN in August. The Council tells me that Mrs D’s vehicle is now on the permitted vehicle list for both the CAZ and bus lanes.

What should have happened

11. When the Council issues a vehicle owner with a PCN the owner has a right to make a representation challenging the PCN. The Council should consider the representation and notify the vehicle owner about its decision.
12. Where a vehicle owner flags up multiple PCNs, and the Council accepts they were issued in error, the Council should cancel the PCNs. It also has the option to place the vehicle onto the relevant permitted vehicle list, this means a PCN will not be generated for the vehicle. There are two permitted vehicle lists, one for CAZ and one for bus lane contraventions. If multiple PCNs have been incorrectly issued for the CAZ then the CAZ permitted vehicle list would be used by the Council.

Was there fault by the Council

13. The Council has already accepted there were mistakes in its complaints correspondence to Mrs D. It acknowledges the PCNs had been issued because a vehicle numberplate was being incorrectly read. Unfortunately, the Council only placed Mrs D’s vehicle on the permitted vehicle list for a short period (less than two months) in February 2023. It did not tell her when the list would expire and gave her incorrect assurances that she would not receive another PCN. Once the inclusion on the permitted vehicle list expired by the start of April Mrs D started to receive further PCNs. That was fault by the Council. It took until June for the Council to recognise the error and update the inclusion on the permitted vehicle list to the maximum allowed period. Once that was done the CAZ PCNs stopped. The Council had put Mrs D details on the CAZ permitted vehicle list only. I do not see there is any fault in that action. Up to that point all the PCNs generated had been for CAZ contraventions. However, in July Mrs D received a bus lane contravention PCN. I see the Council followed the correct process once it received her representation and it also added her details to the bus lane permitted vehicle list meaning no further PCNs for bus lane contraventions have been issued.

Did the fault cause an injustice

14. Mrs D had to make several representations to the Council along with two formal complaints. The Council could have resolved the CAZ PCN issue in February 2023 but instead Mrs D received additional PCNs because of the Council’s error.

Back to top

Agreed action

15. Since the Council has added Mrs D’s details to both permitted vehicle lists, she has not received any further PCNs. That is very positive, and the exemption will run until January 2027.
16. I do consider Mrs D was put to unnecessary time and trouble because of the Council’s mistake in February 2023 when it failed to check how long the vehicle would remain on the permitted vehicle list. This fault meant Mrs D had to pursue her complaint and make additional representations. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs D £100 for her time and trouble.
17. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action within four weeks of the case closing.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman