Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly rejected his challenge to a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and then failed to follow the correct enforcement procedure. The Council accepts it failed to follow the correct procedure. This denied Mr X the opportunity to appeal the Notice. Following the Ombudsman’s investigation. the Council has apologised to Mr X and refunded the charge.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly rejected his challenge to a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and then failed to follow the correct enforcement procedure. He says the rejection was unfair, denied him the opportunity to appeal the notice and meant he had to pay an increased charge. He wanted the Council to refund the charge.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
4. 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

5. I have considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. Mr X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs)

7. If the Council believes a parking contravention has occurred, it may issue a PCN to the registered keeper of the vehicle. If the keeper does not pay the PCN, or makes 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 to the Council.

What happened

8. The Council issued Mr X with a PCN for parking without payment in October 2023. Mr X immediately challenged the PCN. He said he had mistakenly entered the wrong parking location online when paying for the parking.
9. The Council rejected Mr X’s challenge in December 2023. It said it was his responsibility to select the correct location. It told Mr X if he still wanted to challenge the PCN he should wait for the NTO and formally challenge that.
10. The Council says it sent the NTO to Mr X in January 2024. When it received no reply to the NTO it sent Mr X a charge certificate in February 2024. The certificate said it had sent Mr X an NTO on 20 October 2023. Mr X complained to the Council. He said he had never received the NTO and so could not challenge it. Mr X paid the charge of £120.00 on 26 February 2024.
11. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It said Royal Mail had not returned the NTO and as Mr X had now paid the charge the case was closed. Mr X complained to us.
12. In response to our enquiries the Council provided an undated copy of the NTO. It accepted it had incorrectly issued the NTO as it had no date. It said it was unsure why this happened as there were no other cases with undated NTOs. It agreed to cancel the PCN, apologise to Mr X and provide him with a full refund of the charges he paid.

My findings

13. Mr X said the Council wrongly rejected his initial challenge to the PCN. The Council considered Mr X’s representations that he entered the wrong parking location online and decided not to cancel the ticket. There was no fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s representations.
14. However, the Council has accepted fault in that it generated an undated NTO. It confirmed this was unique to Mr X’s case and had not identified the same fault on any other PCN cases. This being the case, on the balance of probabilities Mr X did not receive the NTO and was therefore unable to challenge it, because of the errors the Council has identified. Following our investigation, the Council has apologised to Mr X and refunded the charge. This is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the accepted faults.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council which caused injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman