Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s granting of a ‘school street’ exemption and its issue of a penalty charge notice. This is because Miss X’s injustice stems from the actions of a hire company rather than any actions or fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council granted her an exemption from restrictions on driving in a ‘school street’, yet it issued a penalty charge notice (PCN) for contravening the restrictions. She says the Council provided misleading communication and inadequate support and she found it difficult to raise the matter online due to her ADHD and dyslexia.
2. Miss X says the Council’s actions caused her stress, anxiety, frustration and financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X does not dispute driving in the school street. But she says she had a valid exemption which the Council confirmed by email was valid from “00:00” on the date of the alleged contravention.
6. The Council issued the PCN at 14:51 and says the PCN remains valid because Miss X did not apply for the exemption until 16:31, more than an hour and a half after the contravention occurred.
7. The information Miss X has provided shows no dispute over the timing of her application for the exemption but suggests the Council’s email means the exemption should apply retrospectively. She asked the Council to cancel the PCN and pay her compensation, but the Council refused.
8. At the heart of Miss X’s complaint is a dispute over the validity of the PCN. Miss X’s claim that she had a valid exemption covering the date and time of the alleged contravention is essentially a claim that the PCN is invalid and should be cancelled. This is ordinarily a matter for the appeals process rather than us.
9. However, Miss X is not the owner or registered keeper of the vehicle and she therefore had no right of appeal against the PCN. But this also means she is not directly liable for the PCN and that its issue does not directly affect her or cause her injustice.
10. Miss X’s injustice is the result of charges made against her by the hire company with which she entered into an agreement for the use of the vehicle. This agreement likely included a clause to indemnify the hire company for any PCNs issued while Miss X had the vehicle and did not require the hire company to challenge any PCNs or transfer liability to Miss X so she could challenge them herself.
11. The agreement between Miss X and the hire company is a matter between those two parties and not something which the Council was involved with. The Council maintains that at the time the alleged contravention occurred the vehicle was in the school street without a valid exemption and so it issued a PCN to the hire company as the owner of the vehicle. It was for the hire company to decide whether to pay the PCN or challenge it and it decided to pay it and claim the cost back from Miss X. We cannot hold the Council responsible for any injustice caused by the hire company’s actions and even if the Council did issue a refund it would not directly benefit Miss X as she did not pay the PCN.
12. I appreciate Miss X’s belief that the wording of the Council’s email was misleading and means the PCN should be cancelled but the Council has considered and responded to this issue and it is unlikely we could add to its response. The Council is clear the exemption did not apply retrospectively and any fault therefore would lie in the wording of the email rather than the issue of the PCN. In such circumstances we look at what would have happened, had any fault not occurred. In this case, had the Council’s email stated the exemption applied from the time of the application rather than 00:00 on the date the application was made, the outcome would be the same. The Council would still have issued the PCN and Miss X would still have had no standing to challenge it. Miss X would therefore be in the same position she is now.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Miss X’s injustice stems from the actions of the hire company rather than any actions by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman