Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his request for cancellation of Penalty Charge Notices and retention of the penalty he paid even after he successfully appealed the Notices. He said the Council’s actions caused him avoidable distress. The Council was at fault for not ensuring the enforcement agents issued all of Mr X’s refunds and for closing his complaint before it addressed all his concerns. The Council accepted our recommendations, and we completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to:
• refund him £1,044 after he successfully appealed penalty charge notices in 2022;
• explain to him why it kept £348 of his fees;
• explain which of the penalty change notices were processed and which remained outstanding; and
• confirm if it increased the amount it charged him for the reissued penalty charge notices.
2. Mr X says this caused him and his family uncertainty, stress, and inconvenience. He wants the Council to provide an explanation, apologise and pay him compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended).
5. London Tribunals (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
6. 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered the information he provided.
9. I considered the Council’s response to our enquiries and the documents it provided.
10. Mr X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Penalty Charge Notices

11. If the Council believes a parking contravention has occurred, it may issue a PCN. If the keeper does not pay the PCN or make an informal challenge, the Council may send a Notice to Owner (NTO) to the address where the vehicle is registered. The keeper can then either pay the charge or make formal representations against it to the Council.
12. If the Council rejects the formal representations the owner may appeal against the PCN to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator (ETA). If the keeper does not appeal, or the appeal is unsuccessful, and the owner still does not pay the charge, the Council can issue a charge certificate. If the charge remains unpaid, the Council can register the debt at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC).
13. The TEC can issue an order of recovery allowing the Council to collect the debt. However, the owner of the vehicle has the right to challenge this. This is done by making a witness statement (or statutory declaration for non-parking contraventions) within 28 days, although the owner may apply to make the statement late. The TEC considers the statement/application and can decide to take the process back to an earlier stage; this does not result in cancellation of the PCN but removes the basis for any additional costs and reinstates the owner’s right of appeal to ETA.

Council’s complaints process

14. The Council’s complaint procedure has two stages. The Council says it will acknowledge complaints at both stages in two working days. At stage one the directorate that provided the service will respond to complaints in 15 working days and stage two complaints in 20 working days.

What happened

15. In 2022 Mr X received eight PCNs. The Council sent all the PCNs to the address it got from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA). Mr X did not receive the letters at the time because he failed to keep his address updated with the DVLA. The Council followed the formal process for recovery and by the time Mr X was aware of all the PCNs the outstanding amount he had to pay was £1,044.
16. The Council passed the debt recovery to an enforcement agency. The agency sent a letter to Mr X’s new address and told him that unless he paid the £1,044 enforcement agents would attend his home the following day and take some of his things to cover the debt.
17. Mr X paid the money to stop any enforcement action, but then he contacted the Council in October 2022 to dispute the PCNs. In November 2022 the Council told him that he could appeal the PCNs with the TEC, which he did. The Council closed Mr X’s complaint about the PCNs.
18. At the end of the 2022 Mr X got a revocation order and he contacted the Council and asked if it could refund him his money. If your Witness Statement or Statutory Declaration is accepted by the TEC you will be served with a Revoking Order, a copy of which will be sent to the council. This Order cancels the Order for Recovery, Charge Certificate and (where applicable) the Notice to Owner. The Council said that Mr X only appealed one out of eight PCNs and it could not process all the PCNs as he wanted. The Council told Mr X he would have to submit an out of time witness statement for each one of the PCNs.
19. In May 2023 Mr X contacted the Council again. He said he had all the revocation orders and asked the Council to reissue the PCNs so he could pay them.
20. The Council told Mr X that it was waiting for the TEC to contact it directly, confirmed the PCNs at £120 each and said he could either pay within 14 days of reissue at the discounted rate or appeal; if he appealed, the 14-day discount period would not be put on hold. It then confirmed any overpayment would be refunded but said it could not advise how long this would take. Following this the Council closed Mr X’s complaint. Mr X did not know that after this, he continued to communicate with the Council about a complaint it had already closed, and so his questions did not get passed on to the PCN team to respond.
21. In June 2023 the Council asked the enforcement agency to refund five PCNs to Mr X, however it only refunded four.
22. Under two weeks later Mr X emailed the Council again and said the enforcement agency refunded £696 of the £1,044 he paid. He asked the Council for a breakdown of which charges the refund related to and why he had not received a full refund. He also confirmed he had started to receive the reissued PCNs but was reluctant to pay any more money while he was waiting for the return of the remaining £348.
23. After Mr X’s complaint the Council also realised that it had refunded another PCN to the enforcement agency in December 2022, but Mr X did not get the refund. The Council closed this case on its system and did not realise that the enforcement agency had not processed the refund. The Council said it may be because it did not give full instructions to the enforcement agency. It has already raised the importance of giving suitable advice to enforcement agents when requesting PCN refunds.
24. The Council did not reply to Mr X’s email so he emailed it again in mid-July 2023 asking if the complaints process was complete and whether he could come to us.
25. At the end of the month the Council confirmed he had completed the complaints procedure, and he could complain to us, which Mr X did.
26. At the end of 2023 and while preparing a response to us the Council realised that Mr X should have received the refund for two more PCNs, but he had not. In October and November 2023, the Council paid back the remaining £348 to Mr X.

Analysis

27. The Council said it is likely that it did not give the full instructions to the enforcement agency to refund one of Mr X’s PCN. This is fault. It caused an unnecessary delay and meant Mr X had to complain to get his money back.
28. The Council then closed Mr X’s complaint without fully resolving his complaint. Because of this, the Council failed to pass on the information about the lack of refund to the service that was responsible for ensuring the enforcement agency paid the money back to Mr X. This is fault. This further delayed Mr X getting his money back. We also consider the Council missed the opportunity to explain to Mr X which PCNs were outstanding and what the charges were for each PCN.
29. The Council explained that it did not charge Mr X more for the PCNs and the amount he owed depended on the stage each of the PCNs was at. The Council’s records support this, and the information it provided is in line with the current law on enforcement of PCNs.
30. Since Mr X’s complaint to us the Council has asked the enforcement agency to refund him the £348 that it still had. Additionally, the Council said it would not pursue the five remaining PCNs against Mr X. We consider this suitably remedies the injustice the delay in processing Mr X’s refunds has caused him. We consider the Council should apologise to Mr X to fully remedy the avoidable distress and uncertainty its actions have caused him.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. Within one month of my final decision the Council will apologise to Mr X for the avoidable distress and uncertainty its actions caused him.
32. The Council already confirmed that the enforcement agency refunded Mr X the £348 it originally withheld.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

34. We found the Council was at fault and it caused Mr X an injustice. The Council agreed to our recommendations and our investigation is now complete.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman