Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to act sooner to stop formal action when it incorrectly issued Penalty Charge Notices to Mr X. The Council has already apologised and taken steps to prevent recurrence. It will also make a symbolic payment to Mr X and reimburse the postage cost he incurred to acknowledge the avoidable frustration caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council sent him multiple Clean Air Zone (CAZ) Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) that were for a third party, and it failed to take timely action when he notified it of its error.
2. Mr X said as a result he was caused avoidable worry about his credit record and wrongful enforcement. He said he was also caused frustration and was put to unnecessary time and trouble to return the incorrect PCNs and to chase and complain to the Council.

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 spoke to Mr X about his complaint.
6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council in response to our initial enquiries as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. A PCN is a Penalty Charge Notice issued for driving a non-compliant vehicle into a Clean Air Zone (CAZ) without paying the daily charge. It is a legally binding fine and the registered keeper of the vehicle is liable for this fine.
9. If the PCN and CAZ charges are not challenged or paid in 28 days, a charge certificate is issued which increases the penalty charges. A charge certificate allows councils to register the unpaid penalty charge at county court (Traffic Enforcement Centre).
10. Councils issue a notice of rejection when a formal challenge/representation against the fine is unsuccessful. This means either the full penalty must be paid within 28 days or appealed to an independent tribunal.

What happened

11. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
12. In May 2025 Mr X received three Clean Air Zone (CAZ) Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) that were addressed to a third party. Mr X said he returned these to the Council unopened and marked “not known at this address”.
13. In early June the Council sent three charge certificates to Mr X’s address as it had not received payment on the PCNs it had issued. Mr X returned these to the Council. Mr X said he also contacted other relevant agencies including DVLA to update its records with the correct vehicle keeper address. Mr X incurred postage charges as a result.
14. In mid-June the Council issued three notices of rejection to Mr X’s address. Mr X returned these and contacted the Council.
15. In response to Mr X’s contact, the Council said its CAZ team received contact details from the DVLA and told Mr X that he may receive more PCNs until the DVLA updated its records.
16. In response to the Council’s email Mr X asked the Council to complete a verification of the keeper address for the vehicle, stop enforcement action and remove his address once DVLA had corrected its records.
17. A few days later the Council contacted Mr X and said that the PCNs had been issued in error. The Council confirmed that Mr X’s address had been removed and that he would no longer receive further PCNs.
18. Mr X said the Council did not apologise or provide a financial redress. He complained to the Council.
19. In early July the Council issued a stage one complaint response. In it the Council:

• Explained that it usually obtained vehicle keeper details from the DVLA but on this occasion, it had obtained it from a third-party and incorrectly entered the address on its system.
• Apologised to Mr X for the inconvenience and distress caused, and for not correcting the error sooner when Mr X first made contact.
• Said it had arranged training for the responsible officer and reminded its team to ensure relevant checks were made when inputting details on its system.
• Offered to reimburse the postage cost Mr X incurred.

20. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint. He said the Council incorrectly blamed the DVLA and did not identify its error sooner and of its own accord. Mr X also said the Council should compensate him for the frustration and the time he spent to resolve the matter.
21. In early August the Council issued a stage two response. In it the Council:

• Apologised and reiterated the steps it would take to prevent recurrence such as retraining.
• Accepted it should have explained how the error occurred when it first emailed Mr X to say it had cancelled the PCNs.
• Offered to refund the postage costs but said it did not consider that a financial remedy was needed as Mr X had made contact in June, records were updated soon after and PCNs were cancelled.

22. Mr X asked the Council to reconsider its refusal to provide a financial remedy. In further correspondence with Mr X the Council reiterated that it had acted promptly when the issue was reported and that it did not consider that a goodwill payment was needed. It also outlined the changes it had made which included address-validation checks while processing CAZ accounts, staff training for data input and verification and the introduction of an automatic account hold, triggering checks if post was returned marked “addressee not known.”
23. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us.

The Council’s response to our initial enquiries

24. The Council explained that it had issued several PCNs to the registered keeper of the vehicle who was not Mr X and three of these were incorrectly sent to Mr X’s address due to a manual error in inputting the address of the vehicle owner on its system. It said Mr X had returned the PCNs to the Council in May 2025 and that it had “memos” on the cases to confirm “returned to sender” and “not at this address”. It said it did not “generally” change the addresses when receiving returned mail “but if the other cases had been double checked, the error with the house number may have been spotted.”
25. The Council said that the registered keeper of the vehicle had appealed the other PCNs issued correctly to their address. It said its enforcement officer issued notices of rejection for the appeals but sent three of these to Mr X’s address “presumably without checking the case memos or without spotting the fact that mail had been returned to sender and there were discrepancies on the addresses.”
26. The Council added that its officer had given incorrect advice that Mr X may receive more PCNs until DVLA corrected its records because the Council had manually entered the details from a sales invoice after the sale of the vehicle. It said if it had checked the cases, it may have spotted the error. The Council said it found the error when it checked its records after Mr X requested it.

Findings

27. The Council wrongly inputted an address on its system which meant Mr X received three PCNs which did not relate to him. This was fault. It then missed opportunities to check and correct the wrongly inputted address when Mr X returned the PCNs to the Council in May and when he alerted it to further correspondence related to the PCNs in June. It should have checked the cases to confirm the address when it first received the returned PCNs and upon further contact from Mr X in June. It did not so until Mr X requested this which was fault.
28. The Council’s fault meant Mr X was issued with PCNs and charge certificates to his address and he was caused avoidable frustration and spent time contacting the Council and other agencies to resolve the issue.
29. While it is acknowledged that the Council has apologised, offered to reimburse Mr X with postage costs and taken steps to prevent recurrence, I consider that a symbolic payment is needed to recognise the avoidable frustration Mr X was caused by the Council’s fault.

Back to top

Agreed actions

30. Within one month of this decision the Council will:
1. Pay Mr X £150 to acknowledge the frustration caused by the avoidable delay in taking appropriate action to stop the wrongly issued Penalty Charge Notices from escalating.
2. If it has not already done so, reimburse Mr X for the postage costs he incurred in relation to the incorrect Penalty Charge Notices.
31. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

32. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed actions to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman