Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about enforcement of Penalty Charge Notices. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council continued to pursue Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs), after he told it the person named on the notice did not live at his address and he did not know them.
2. He says enforcement officers attended his home, when he was incapacitated due to ill health.
3. He says he has continued to receive PCNs since his final response from the Council and the Council’s advice to return them to sender places a burden on him.
4. He says this has caused severe emotional and physical distress, disrupting his medical recovery and education.
5. He seeks:

• A financial remedy for ‘Time and Trouble’ and ‘Distress’
• His address to be disassociated from the owner of the vehicle and the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) and other councils to be notified
• A formal admission that ignoring five notifications was maladministration
• A review of why medical disclosures were ignored and implementation of a vulnerability trigger to stop future automated enforcement
• The Council to stop instructing him to manage fraudulent mail and provide him with a secure way to return existing letters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

7. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. The Council wrote to Mr X within a few days of him first telling it the individual named did not live at his address and he did not know them.
11. It advised him it is obliged to act on information as provided by the DVLA. It advised him to return the PCNs to sender and explained how to contact the DVLA so it could change its records.
12. The Council does not have the authority to take any further action to change the address where the vehicle is registered. It is therefore unlikely that further investigation will find fault.
13. Some months later, enforcement agents (EAs) attended Mr X home while he was recovering from health issues. I understand he says this had a considerable impact on him. The Council did not know of his health condition until he complained, following the enforcement visit.
14. The Council explained it must act on contraventions using the information held by the DVLA. It withdrew the PCNs from the EAs, partially in reflection of Mr X’s vulnerabilities. It again advised him to return the PCNs to sender and explained how to contact the DVLA so it can change its records.
15. Mr X says he received further PCNs. However, the Council said if he did not inform the DVLA, he may continue to receive newly issued PCNs as it is unable to change the registered address of the vehicle.. It is unlikely that further investigation will find fault on the part of the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman