Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to cancel several penalty charge notices despite him providing evidence to show he was not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time. The Council is not satisfied the evidence provided to date is sufficient to cancel the PCNs but has invited Mr X to provide further evidence which it has agreed to consider. It is unlikely investigation would achieve a different outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has refused to cancel several penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued for contraventions of its clean air zone. Mr X says he was not the owner of the vehicle at the time the contraventions were committed and that he has provided evidence of this to the Council.

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 Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for road user charging contraventions. The process allows motorists to make representations against any PCN they believe should be cancelled and, if the Council rejects these representations, they may appeal to a tribunal.
6. The opportunity to make representations under the statutory process lasts only for a short period of time but councils have discretion to accept late representations and must consider whether to exercise their discretion on a case-by-case basis.
7. Mr X did not make representations under the statutory process for any of the PCNs he now disputes. He has recently approached the CAB for advice and obtained confirmation from the DVLA that he sold the car before the contraventions took place. The CAB then sent this information to the Council and asked that it consider cancelling the PCNs.
8. The Council decided not to consider Mr X’s late representations but has since confirmed that it will do so if Mr X provides evidence to show he cancelled his insurance for the vehicle at the time he says he sold it. The Council’s approach to the issue is rational and suitable and it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has agreed to consider further evidence and it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman