Summary: We found there was no fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms X’s contacts following the issue of a Penalty Charge Notice and the case being passed to enforcement agents.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to provide adequate information to explain how she should challenge a warrant of control for an unpaid traffic charge. Ms X did not receive any correspondence prior to the warrant. She also complained about how the Council dealt with the complaint she raised.
2. Ms X says the lack of information while under the threat of enforcement action caused distress and she remained concerned until the Penalty Charge was eventually cancelled and reissued.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms 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

Process for challenging a PCN ‘out of time’

7. Government Guidance says that someone may challenge a Penalty Charge Notice they have not received by completing a statutory declaration and submitting it to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). Government advice about the process states that Enforcement Agents will be told to stop any action while the ‘out of time’ challenge to the PCN is being considered.
8. The Council confirmed to us that once it is aware a statutory declaration had been submitted, the Council would place enforcement on hold pending the TEC’s decision.

What Happened

Background

9. On 9 March 2024 Ms X entered and stopped in a box junction, triggering a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The Council contacted the DVLA to obtain Ms X’s address and sent the PCN to the address the DVLA supplied.
10. Because the Council did not hear from Ms X and did not get payment for the PCN, it issued a Charge Certificate to the same address on 24 April. This increased the amount due and stated if no payment was received in 14 days, a debt may be registered with the County Court and a warrant may be issued to Enforcement Agents to recover it.
11. In early May an Order for Recovery notice was sent to the same address confirming the Council had registered the debt. The Order for Recovery included a PE3 Statutory Declaration form to use if the recipient had not received the PCN, or if they had made an appeal or representations against the PCN but not had a reply.
12. As the Council received no response to any of its correspondence, it passed the debt to Enforcement Agents (EAs).

Ms X’s Complaint

13. Ms X did not receive the PCN, Charge Notice or Order for Recovery because it went to an old address. As a result, she was unaware of it and not in receipt of information the various notices contained.
14. When EAs were instructed in July, they carried out an identity/address check and established Ms X had a new address. On 16 July the EAs sent a Warrant of Control to Ms X at the new address. The EAs then sent a Notice of Enforcement.
15. I understand Ms X had a discussion with the EAs on 22 July. They declined to cease pursuing the debt unless they were advised to do so by their client; the Council.
16. On 22 July Ms X also spoke to the Council and explained she had not received any of the earlier correspondence because she had moved. An officer told Ms X that the Council obtained the registered vehicle owner’s address from the DVLA. Ms X said she had told the DVLA of her new address and it had updated her new drivers licence at the end of February. She said she found it upsetting that EAs were suddenly threatening to clamp her car because of a PCN she had no prior notice of.
17. The officer explained that Ms X needed to complete an ‘out of time’ statutory declaration and send this to the TEC. The form can be used to declare that the PCN was not received. The officer directed Ms X as to where to find the form online, which she did while on the telephone. The officer stated there was nothing the Council could do at this stage of the process and the form would need to be completed. Ms X was unhappy that the Council would not advise the EAs to cease pursuing the matter in the meantime, as she was concerned her car may be clamped at any time.
18. On 23 July Ms X complained to the Council and EAs that neither would cease action and they should do because she had not had any prior notice of the PCN. She stated the warrant was likely unlawful and the process was an abuse of power, designed to bully people.
19. On 24 July the EAs sent an email to Ms X stating that they had placed her account on hold for 30 days for the Council to review things.
20. On 29 July the Council wrote to Ms X recognising she was dissatisfied with the handling of the case and confirming she needed to complete and send the statutory declaration to the court.
21. Ms X provided us with evidence she submitted a statutory declaration which the court received on 1 August 2024.
22. On 5 August the Council wrote again stating Ms X had two options, to complete the statutory declaration and send this to the country or to pay the outstanding balance to the EAs in full.
23. On 14 August the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. The Council did not uphold the complaint. It found it had issued the PCN and other notices properly in line with the law. At that time, the Council was not aware that a statutory declaration had been filed. However, as a gesture of goodwill, it had placed a seven day hold on enforcement action to allow this to be done.
24. On 15 August the Council received confirmation from the court that Ms X had submitted a statutory declaration. There is evidence it advised the EAs that the case should be placed on hold as a result.
25. The Council subsequently sent an odd communication to Ms X which appeared to be an internal communication commenting on whether a complaint from her could be considered. Ms X queried this.
26. On 22 October the Council reiterated to Ms X that it had placed her account on hold on 14 August pending submission of a statutory declaration. It confirmed the TEC acknowledged receipt of a declaration form on 15 August. The Council stated the case was currently on hold awaiting the court’s decision as a result.
27. I understand the TEC ordered the PCN to be cancelled and re-issued on 24 October 2024. The Council took this action. This also resulted in the Council recalling and cancelling the debt from the EAs. Reissuing the PCN allowed Ms X the opportunity to make representations. Ms X made representations which the Council considered and dismissed. Ms X then paid the PCN on 8 December to end the process.
28. On 5 March 2025 the Council responded to Ms X’s request for her complaint to be escalated. It largely reiterated its view that it had conducted the process correctly and without administrative fault. In explaining its actions, the Council stated it had placed a hold on the case on 23 July, 29 July and 15 August. It stated it would only generally place a hold on recovery action once it was aware a statutory declaration had been filed. It noted the eventual outcome which resolved the matter.
29. Ms X told us she was very distressed when she first received contact from the EAs and unhappy that the Council would not agree to suspend the action it was taking. She continued to be very concerned that action may be taken until the PCN was cancelled. She complained the Council did not provide adequate information about setting the warrant aside in the circumstances she was in and there was delay responding to her complaint.
30. The Council told us since the complaint it had improved information on its own website about the use of the TEC.

Was there fault by the Council

31. Obtaining a registered vehicle owner’s address from the DVLA is the correct process for councils to use when sending out PCNs. The Council provided evidence that the DVLA had provided it with the original address it used to write to Ms X. It is not clear why the address given to the Council by the DVLA was not up to date. However, it was through no fault on the Council’s part that Ms X did not receive the PCN and other documents.
32. I understand that Ms X was distressed by the EA contact which was the first she had known of the PCN and the debt that it caused. Ms X considered the Council should have immediately instructed the EAs to suspend action when she made the initial contact with the Council. I recognise that the situation was stressful. However, I found that, overall, the officer Ms X spoke to on 22 July did provide appropriate guidance. They acknowledged Ms X had not received earlier correspondence and explained that she needed to complete the out of time statutory declaration and send this to the TEC. The officer helped Ms X find the form.
33. Government guidance states that when someone has submitted a statutory declaration having not received a PCN, the matter should be placed on hold awaiting the court’s decision. It may have been helpful for the officer to explain that the matter would be placed on hold once the statutory declaration was with the TEC. However, councils are not under an obligation to place cases on hold before a declaration is submitted, so the officer was not at fault when they did not agree to do so.
34. Although not required to do so, I note that in Ms X’s case, the EAs did place the matter on hold for 30 days. They advised Ms X this on the morning of 24 July, soon after she first raised her concerns on 22 July. The Council later advised Ms X on 14 August that it would place a hold on action for 7 days to allow the declaration to be submitted. Communication about the suspension of action, could, perhaps have been more consistent, and the Council could have made Ms X aware when it had received confirmation the statutory declaration had been received by TEC. But it is clear the EAs and the Council exercised discretion to suspend action while it awaited confirmation that a statutory declaration had been filed and that it had told Ms X this. It then kept the matter on hold until the court made its decision.
35. There was delay in responding to Ms X’s complaint. The Council did not respond to the complaint until March 2025. However, the Council apologised for the delay when doing so. I do not have grounds to seek anything further in this respect.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman