Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s communication about a Penalty Charge Notice. This caused avoidable confusion, frustration and a missed opportunity to appeal or pay a reduced fee. The Council will make a payment, apologise and reissue a letter which will allow Mr X to appeal to the London Tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to respond to his representations against a PCN by email as he had asked, instead sending it by post, and only forwarding a copy by post later once the time for appealing had passed. He said this caused a loss of appeal rights and/or a missed opportunity to pay a reduced fee.

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. 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

4. I considered Mr X’s complaint and documents set out later in this statement. I discussed the complaint with Mr X.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

6. Our Principles of Good Administrative Practice set out our expectations for public service providers. We expect councils to be:
• Citizen focussed. This means responding to their needs flexibly and dealing with them helpfully, promptly and sensitively.
• Open and accountable. This means ensuring information provided is clear, accurate and complete.
7. If a motorist breaks moving traffic rules, they might receive a fine called a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The authority will send the PCN to the person who appears to own the vehicle (usually the registered keeper) by post. It will show the fine amount and how to appeal.
8. The motorist has 28 days from the date of the notice to pay the fine or ‘make representations’ against it. The fine is usually halved if it is paid within 14 days in London. If the authority rejects the appeal, the motorist can appeal to the London Tribunals. 
9. The authority can issue a charge certificate which increases the fine by 50% if:

• the fine is not paid;
• the motorist does not appeal against the fine; or
• the appeal is not successful.

10. The authority can cancel the fine at any time. We therefore expect it to look at special circumstances even though the Tribunal cannot use these as a reason to cancel the fine. 

What happened

11. The Council issued Mr X with a PCN for a moving traffic penalty on 25 June.
12. Mr X challenged the PCN on 2 July using the Council’s on-line PCN management system. He said the restriction signs were not visible until after the contravention occurred and the Council’s pictures were not time stamped.
13. The Council sent Mr X a Notice of Rejection of Representation by post on 2 August. It explained it had issued a PCN because CCTV evidence shows him driving where vehicles are not allowed. It went on to say the sign was white and had a red boarder with an image of a car and motorbike indicating they are prohibited. The Council did not address Mr X’s point about the signs not being visible until after he had committed the contravention. The letter set out Mr X’s options:
• Pay £65 within 14 days,
• Pay £130 within 28 days
• Appeal to the parking adjudicator within 28 days (with a link).
• If he did nothing, the Council may send him a charge certificate after 28 days. This would increase the charge to £195.
14. On 30 August, Mr X sent an on-line message through the Council’s PCN management system asking for an update on the status of his appeal. He said he hadn’t heard anything about his appeal. (Mr X told me he had lost the key to his post box at this time and so could not get access to his post and so hadn’t seen the Council’s rejection letter.) Mr X sent a second message on the same day asking the Council to email him or phone him. He said he would not be logging on to the Council’s on-line system every day to see the result of his appeal.
15. The Council sent a letter to Mr X using its on-line PCN management system on 13 October 2024 saying:
• It had replied to him on 2 August by post. That letter had advised him his formal representation was unsuccessful and re-offered the discounted rate to be paid within 14 days of the date of the letter. It had complied with the regulations by responding to his formal representation
• He said he didn’t receive the Notice of Rejection, but the Council only has to prove service of correspondence about a PCN, not receipt. So he had to pay the PCN at £130
• If he didn’t pay, the Council would issue charge certificate which would increase the amount due to £195. The charge certificate is due to be sent out
• If he didn’t pay this, the Council may apply to court to recover charges
• As part of the statutory process, the Council cannot enter into further correspondence on this matter.
16. The Council sent Mr X a charge certificate on 14 October. It explained it had increased the PCN to £195 and that if he did not pay within 14 days, it may register the debt with the county court and once this happened, it would pass the case to bailiffs who would add costs.
17. The Council told us it received Mr X’s payment of £195 on 11 November.

Was there fault causing injustice?

18. There was fault causing injustice as follows:
• Mr X asked the Council to contact him by email or phone rather than using the on-line system. We expect councils to respond to a person’s communication preferences flexibly. The Council continued to use the on-line system to correspond with Mr X which was inflexible and fault causing avoidable inconvenience.
• The Council took six weeks to reply to Mr X’s message of 30 August. In the context of a PCN challenge, this was not prompt, was not in line with our expected standards and was fault causing avoidable frustration.
• The Council was aware on 13 October that Mr X had not seen a copy of the Notice of Rejection as he had asked what was happening about his appeal in his message of 30 August. In those circumstances, it was not citizen focussed, open or accountable of the Council to (1) fail to include a further copy of the Notice of Rejection for Mr X to see what he needed to do next and the timescales and (2) to issue a charge certificate the day after responding to his query. This was a loss of opportunity for Mr X to pay the PCN at the discounted rate.
• The Council’s letter of 13 October said it could not enter into further correspondence about the matter. This is incorrect. The Council can always reply to correspondence and it has discretion to cancel a PCN at any stage in the statutory process. Providing inaccurate information was fault and caused avoidable confusion.

Back to top

Agreed action

19. The Council will within one month:
• Apologise to Mr X. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Refund Mr X £130
• Reissue the Notice of Rejection which will allow Mr X to appeal to the Tribunal if he wishes
• Remind officers that they can always correspond about a PCN at any stage in the process and there is always discretion to cancel a PCN.
20. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

21. There was fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendation for a payment, apology and changes to the service to minimise the risk of recurrence.
22. I completed the investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman