Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because Mrs X is not liable for the penalty charge as she does not own the vehicle and the injustice she claims stems from the actions of the owner (a lease company) which has charged her for it.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council issued her a penalty charge notice (PCN) for driving in a bus lane while she was following a diversion. She says this caused her stress, upset, time and financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X leases her car from a lease company. The lease company is therefore shown as the owner of the vehicle on the DVLA’s records and the Council issued the PCN to them.
6. The lease company shared details of the PCN with Mrs X and invited her to challenge it. It also said it had applied to transfer liability to Mrs X. Mrs X sent representations against the PCN to the Council explaining she had been following a diversion. The Council considered this information and wrote to the lease company on 7 January 2025 confirming it accepted the representations and had cancelled the PCN. However, Mrs X says the lease company has charged her for the PCN and not refunded her payment. She asked the Council for a copy of its letter but the Council has refused to provide it.
7. The Council says it cannot share the letter with Mrs X because it does not have the lease company’s authority. It is concerned that doing so would amount to a breach of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and if Mrs X disputes this she may wish to make a formal request and take the matter to the Information Commissioner. It is not for us to say the Council must share the letter with Mrs X.
8. As part of my assessment the Council has provided a copy of its ‘notice of acceptance’, along with a screenshot which shows this was issued on 7 January 2025. The Council’s response is well within the applicable timescale and we could not therefore say it was at fault in its handling of Mrs X’s representations. Further, we could not say its actions caused Mrs X significant injustice. This is because Mrs X is not directly liable for the PCN and has only taken on responsibility for payment under her contract with the lease company. It is also the lease company, rather than the Council, which has taken payment from her.
9. The Council has cancelled the PCN and confirmed this in writing to the lease company but it has no control over whether and when the lease company refunds Mrs X’s money. This is governed by the contract Mrs X has with the lease company and if Mrs X believes it has breached the terms of her contract she may wish to seek legal advice.
10. Mrs X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mrs X significant injustice. Mrs X’s liability for the PCN stems from her agreement with the lease company and it is them, rather than the Council, which has charged her for the PCN. The Council has cancelled the PCN and any refund owed to Mrs X is a matter between her and the lease company.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman