Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to tell him it was pursuing a penalty charge notice. We have not found evidence of fault by the Council. We have completed the investigation and not uphold the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr D, says the Council failed to tell him it was taking enforcement action for nonpayment of a penalty charge notice (PCN) in 2023 and 2024.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

What I have and have not investigated

3. We do not consider the validity of the PCN, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Instead, we look at whether the correct administrative process was followed. I have looked at events up to June 2024, matters after that fall outside my investigation as they occurred after Mr D had received a reply to his complaint from the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information provided by Mr D. I asked the Council questions and considered its response.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. The Council issued Mr D with a PCN on 24 March 2023. Mr D queried the PCN with the Council at the end of the month. The Council responded by email on 11 April that it had considered his informal representations and the PCN had been correctly issued. If he wanted to dispute the PCN he should now make formal representations when he received the Notice to Owner. The Council explained the appeal process. On 15 April Mr D told the Council he did not accept its view. The Council replied on 28 April explaining why the PCN was issued. If payment was not made it would issue the Notice to Owner.
6. On 22 May the Council posted the Notice to Owner to Mr D, it sent it to the address held by the DVLA. It then sent the Charge Certificate to Mr D at the end of June and issued the Order for Recovery to the same address in October. Because there was no payment or contact from Mr D the case then passed to Enforcement Agents to pursue the recovery of the debt. The Enforcement Agents visited the address provided by the DVLA in February 2024 and were told Mr D had moved. Further checks with the DVLA showed Mr D had updated his address. The Enforcement Agents removed their fee for the initial enforcement visit and in April wrote to Mr D at the new address with a Notice of Enforcement. At the end of April Mr D complained to the Council that he had not been told the case was being pursued. On 1 May the Council replied that it had followed the correct process.

Events outside my investigation

7. In July the Enforcement Agent sought approval from the Traffic Enforcement Centre to pursue the debt recovery at Mr D’s new address. That authorisation was given in September.

What should have happened

8. When a vehicle owner receives a PCN from the Council they can make informal representations challenging the PCN. If the Council reject those it will issue a Notice to Owner which is posted to the address held by the DVLA (as provided to the DVLA by the registered owner of the vehicle). The vehicle owner can then submit formal representations to the Council or pay the PCN. If they do neither action, the enforcement process will continue. The Council will issue a Charge Certificate and then an Order for Recovery. The case will then be referred to an Enforcement Agent to recover the debt. The Enforcement Agent will contact the vehicle owner. If they find the vehicle owner’s address has changed, they can make further checks with the DVLA. Where a new address is provided the Enforcement Agent should reissue the Notice of Enforcement to the new address. They should also seek approval from the Traffic Enforcement Centre to continue the debt recovery for a road traffic case where the address has changed. They can continue to issue correspondence to the vehicle owner pending approval. Once approval is given, formal debt recovery action can proceed.

Was there fault by the Council

9. Mr D says he was not notified the Council was pursuing the PCN. I consider the Council acted correctly. It sent formal notices to the address Mr D had provided to the DVLA. The onus of responsibility was on Mr D (under s.46a of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994) to ensure his address was up to date with the DVLA. The Council did not receive any contact from Mr D informing it that he had moved, nor did it receive returned post. As such the Council was entitled to consider the notices had been correctly issued. When the PCN was not paid the Council had the right to refer the case to Enforcement Agents to pursue recovery of the debt. Once the Enforcement Agent was aware Mr D had moved it took the correct steps to find his new address. It issued a new Notice of Enforcement and sought approval from the Traffic Enforcement Centre to proceed with enforcement. There is no evidence of fault by the Council and Enforcement Agent in this case.
10. I appreciate Mr D does not agree with the steps taken by the Council and Enforcement Agent. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr D disagrees with the decisions made.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I have completed the investigation and not uphold the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman