Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s online and telephone systems did not allow him to pay a penalty charge notice at the discounted rate. This is because the Council extended the period for payment and Mr X had other options to pay. We could not therefore say any issue with the systems caused the injustice Mr X claims.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to update its system to allow him to make payment for a penalty charge notice (PCN) at the discounted rate. Mr X missed the deadline for payment and the Council therefore escalated the case, registered the unpaid PCN as a debt and passed it to enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover payment from him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

4. It is a legal requirement for motorists to update the DVLA following the change of address of a registered vehicle. Mr X moved house but did not update the DVLA, so when the Council issued him a PCN the PCN went to his old house. He found out about the PCN after the expiry of the discounted period for payment and following an increase in the amount of the fine. At this point he contacted the Council asking it to accept payment at the discounted rate of £65 and on 26 April 2023 the Council agreed. It told him he could pay online, by phone, by postal order or cash at the car pound.
5. Mr X says he tried to pay online and by phone but the Council’s systems would not accept his payment. He initially believed this to be because of a fault in the system but he now considers it is the result of council staff failing to update the system to show it had agreed to accept payment at the discounted rate.
6. Mr X contacted the Council and in response it agreed to provide a further opportunity for him to pay at the discounted rate. He thanked the Council and explained he wanted to pay but had been unable to do so online or by phone. He said he wanted to pay by bank transfer and asked for the Council’s bank details. The Council told Mr X it could not accept payment by bank transfer but agreed to extend the deadline for his payment at the discounted rate until 21 May 2023.
7. Mr X says he was trying to work out a way to pay the Council and did not notice the option to pay by postal order until after the deadline for payment had passed. He wrote to the Council on 1 June 2023 explaining he would pay by postal order, which he did soon afterwards, but the Council returned the postal order to him as the discounted period had expired and the payment no longer covered the amount owed. It had therefore escalated the case, registered the unpaid PCN as a debt with the court and passed the case to its bailiffs. Mr X has now paid the bailiffs but wants the Council to refund his payment, keeping only £65 in payment for the PCN at the discounted rate. He also believes the Council should pay him compensation.

Analysis

8. I appreciate it was frustrating for Mr X not to be able to pay the PCN online or by phone when the Council gave him these options. But the Council agreed to extend the discounted period until 21 May 2023 in recognition of the problems Mr X experienced and this gave him two and a half weeks more to make payment at the reduced rate.
9. I have seen no evidence to show Mr X contacted the Council during this time to report any further issues or to ask for help and Mr X accepts he did not send a postal order sooner simply because he had not noticed this was an option. He did not pay by cash at the car pound as he did not want to travel.
10. The Council is entitled to limit the ways it will accept payment and regardless of whether the online and telephone systems allowed him to pay initially Mr X had the option to pay by postal order or by cash at the car pound for more than three weeks. The injustice he claims stems from his delay in making payment by postal order when this option had been available to him from 26 April 2023. We will not therefore investigate as we cannot say the Council is responsible for the increased charges and would not recommend the Council refunds his payment or makes a payment for his time and trouble.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice Mr X claims is not the result of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman