Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of penalty charge notices issued to Mr X. This is because the Council has offered Mr X a suitable remedy for his injustice and it is unlikely investigation would achieve significantly more for him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council issued him numerous penalty charge notices (PCNs) for crossing the Mersey Gateway toll bridge without paying the toll. Mr X says he sold the car long before the crossings and the Council failed to check the information provided by the DVLA which stated he was the registered keeper of the vehicle.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X’s representative (Mr Y) and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council was entitled to rely on the information provided by the DVLA and was not required to carry out further checks to verify the information before issuing the PCNs. The law requires the owner/registered keeper of a vehicle to update the DVLA when they sell the vehicle so the Council was not at fault for acting on the information it provided.
6. Mr X contacted the Council to dispute the PCNs but the Council rejected his representations and asked for further information. Mr X provided an acknowledgement from the DVLA but the Council says this covered only part of the period over which the PCNs were issued. It cancelled the PCNs issued in this period but there were further PCNs which pre-dated the acknowledgement so the Council asked for further information. It accepts it could have been clearer about the information Mr X should provide and that it delayed by one week in identifying the form of authority provided by Mr Y to represent Mr X in the matter. It therefore offered Mr X £200 as a gesture of goodwill. The Council confirms all the PCNs issued have been cancelled and Mr X has made no payment in respect of them.
7. I am satisfied the Council’s offer provides a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by these issues and it is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve significantly more for Mr X.
8. I appreciate Mr X does not believe the £200 offered is sufficient as he has spent at least £750 on legal fees for Mr Y to represent him in the matter, but there was no requirement for him to do so; it was entirely his choice and not something the Council had any control over. We would not therefore say the Council must refund his legal fees for corresponding with the Council or referring the complaint to us.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s agreement to pay Mr X provides a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by its handling of the matter. There is no evidence of fault in the issue of the PCNs themselves and the Council acted appropriately in requesting evidence from Mr X and cancelling the PCNs once this was received.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman