Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) he received from the Council for driving in the clean air zone (CAZ) without paying the charge. He says he was not driving at the time of the contravention and although he provided the driver’s details the Council ignored him and escalated the case. It has now instructed enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover payment from him.

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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. When a council issues a PCN by post it will send the notice to the owner/registered keeper of the vehicle shown to have committed the contravention; these details are provided by the DVLA. The owner/registered keeper then has 28 days to pay the PCN or make representations against it to the issuing authority.
6. The Council issued the PCN to Mr X on 27/11/23 but did not receive any representations from Mr X until 3 January 2024. This was more than 28 days after the issue of the PCN so the Council disregarded Mr X’s representations as it was entitled to do. It was Mr X’s responsibility, if he wished to challenge the PCN, to ensure the Council received his representations in time.
7. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s representations to warrant investigation. It is also not clear that Mr X’s representations would have provided good reasons to cancel the PCN anyway.
8. There are limited statutory grounds for challenging PCNs and Mr X’s representations were based on his vehicle having been taken without his knowledge or consent. However the further explanation he provided showed that he had allowed a friend to borrow his car and this led to the contravention. Although he said he had told his friend they could not drive in the CAZ this is unlikely to have provided the necessary grounds to transfer liability for the PCN, which by default rests with the owner/registered keeper of the vehicle and not the person driving the vehicle at the time the contravention occurred.
9. There is no suggestion the Council failed to follow the proper process in escalating the PCN and registering it with the court, or that there has been any fault by the bailiffs in pursuing Mr X for payment. Mr X says he will pay the PCN but wants to pay by instalments. This is now a matter for the bailiffs so Mr X should contact them. The bailiffs may ask for details of Mr X’s income and expenditure to determine an appropriate payment plan and if Mr X believes any plan offered is unaffordable he should provide evidence to support his claim.
10. Mr X may also want to ask his friend to reimburse him for the cost of the PCN.

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.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman