Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his representations when he disputed a penalty charge notice for a vehicle he did not own at the time. This caused significant distress, frustration and inconvenience in trying to resolve the matter, impacting on his wellbeing. The Council accepted it made an error by not properly considering his evidence. The Council has agreed to further remedy the injustice with another apology and symbolic payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s actions relating to Penalty Charge Notice it issued to him. He said he was not the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence, but the Council dismissed his evidence. It passed it to the enforcement agents, and he said he was harassed by them. The Council has since acknowledged it was at fault for not accepting his evidence when he sent it and cancelled the Penalty Charge Notice. This caused significant frustration, inconvenience and distress to Mr X.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review 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 use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
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 discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered his views.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened – summary of key relevant events

8. In late September 2023, Mr X received a Penalty Charge Notice (“PCN”) for a moving traffic offence.
9. In early October 2023, Mr X posted his formal representations. He said he had not owned the vehicle for several months and not at the time of the offence. He sent evidence of the transaction.
10. In late November 2023, the Council sent a letter to Mr X responding to his representations. It advised him to contact the DVLA to update their records as it had him as the registered keeper. It did not send a Notice of Rejection.
11. Mr X contacted the DVLA who confirmed it amended its records. Mr X said he posted this further evidence to the Council. It appears the Council did not receive this. Mr X said he did not receive a response and assumed the Council had accepted his evidence.
12. Between January and February 2024, the Council issued a Charge Certificate and Order for Recovery to Mr X, increasing the amount and asked him to pay. The Council did not receive a response. Mr X said he did not receive these.
13. In late May 2024, the Council passed the debt to Company A – the Enforcement Agents it used to recover money on its behalf. Company A issued a Notice of Enforcement to Mr X.
14. In mid-June and July 2024, Mr X wrote to the Council twice. He outlined the evidence he had already provided but now Company A was pursuing him. This was impacting on his wellbeing, and he was elderly. He asked it to end the matter.
15. In mid-August 2024, the Council responded to Mr X in a formal complaint response. It noted:
• Mr X responded to the PCN with formal representations that he was not the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the offence.
• He had supplied a copy of the part exchange paperwork to support his claim.
• Its Appeals Team told him to contact the DVLA. While this advice was correct, it had failed to address the evidence he provided and transfer the liability of the PCN accordingly. It acknowledged this error as the evidence was enough for it to do this at the time. It highlighted this mistake with the Team Leader.
16. In light of this, it recalled the PCN from Company A. It apologised and upheld his complaint.
17. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided case notes from Company A with records of contact it had with Mr X when pursuing the money between May and August 2024. This included numerous emails and text messages it sent to him about payment. Mr X had called Company A a few times and it told him it was acting under the Council’s instruction; it did not deal with disputes.

Analysis

18. The Council did not properly consider Mr X’s formal representations, which he made promptly in response to the PCN. This is fault. The Council accepts this. His case remained open. It also did not send Mr X a Notice of Rejection which would have given him a right to appeal. This is further fault.
19. Mr X said he sent additional information from the DVLA to the Council around late December 2023. But it appears the Council did not receive it, so did not act on it. The Council then sent him further notices asking for payment as it had not heard from him. Mr X said he did not receive any contact until around May or June 2024 when he received a letter from Company A. Mr X assumed the matter had been dealt with.
20. From this point, Company A sent several messages and emails to him over the next few months pursuing the payment which added to his distress, as he was not liable for the charge.
21. It seems there was some non-receipt of information from both sides during this period when the case continued. However, in my view, the main issues stem from the Council’s fault with his formal representations. Ultimately, had it not been for this fault, upon receipt of this evidence, the Council should have accepted he was not liable and closed the case against him fairly early on. Instead, it remained open, and this led to the avoidable and unnecessary enforcement action against him. This caused Mr X significant frustration and distress (there is an element of vulnerability due to his older age) and he felt harassed. He was also put to additional inconvenience, and time and trouble, in trying to resolve the matter.
22. The Council apologised in response to his complaint, and I have seen evidence it highlighted the error to a senior member of the Team to consider. These are appropriate actions; however, this is not enough to remedy his injustice. I have made further recommendations below.

Back to top

Agreed Action

23. To remedy the personal injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of the final decision:
• Provide a meaningful apology in writing to Mr X that recognises the injustice caused (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology); and
• Pay Mr X a symbolic payment of £175 to recognise his distress, frustration, and inconvenience with the fault identified.
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

25. I found fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to the recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman