The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s refusal to cancel a PCN due to a medical emergency. We have not found the Council to be at fault. It considered Mrs X’s circumstances but decided not to cancel the PCN. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
The complaint
Mrs X complains the Council failed to take account of mitigating circumstances when it enforced a PCN for a moving traffic offence. She also says she was not advised the London Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to cancel a PCN in the case of a medical emergency.
She says this caused significant distress and inconvenience.
Mrs X is represented by her son, Mr P, in making this complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
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(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I have spoken to Mrs X’s representative, Mr P, by telephone and have considered what he has said in support of the complaint. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken their views and comments into account before making a final decision.
What I found
Moving traffic offences Where a council believes a moving traffic contravention has occurred, it may serve a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on the owner of the vehicle. Councils often use cameras to detect contraventions, so the PCN will usually be served by post.
The Council is responsible for enforcing moving traffic offences in its area.
The Council’s policy allows registered keepers to make formal representations to challenge the PCN. If unsuccessful, the registered keeper can appeal to the London Tribunals (the Tribunal). The Tribunal can only cancel a PCN for specific reasons that do not include personal circumstances.
What happened Mr P drove down a road that had a prohibition order in force. Mrs X, the registered keeper and disabled, was a passenger.
The Council issued a PCN. This explained Mrs X would need to pay £130, or £65 if she paid within 14 days. The PCN included information about how to make representations if wanted to challenge the PCN and her right of appeal to the Tribunal.
Mrs X asked the Council to cancel the PCN because there were extenuating circumstances that led to the offence being committed. She explained she had low blood sugar levels and continence issues during the journey and so needed to be taken home urgently. Mr P relied on a satellite navigation app that directed him home in the quickest time possible. Mr P said he had not driven down this road for some time so was unaware traffic restrictions were in force.
He provided the Council with details of Mrs X’s long-term illnesses, her blue badge and low income.
In response, the Council said motorists should not rely solely on satellite navigation and are expected to remain observant while in control of a vehicle. It considered what Mrs X had said but decided not to cancel the PCN. Mrs X was advised of her right of appeal to the Tribunal and allowed another 14 days to pay at the discounted rate.
Mrs X appealed to the Tribunal. This was unsuccessful because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to cancel a PCN based on a defence of mitigating circumstances such a medical emergency. The Tribunal was satisfied the road had sufficient signage indicating cars were prohibited. It explained only the Council could cancel the PCN based on mitigating circumstances.
The Council referred the case to bailiffs to recover the debt. This has increased the amount owed and caused significant distress to Mrs X and Mr P. The Council agreed to put this enforcement action on hold while the Ombudsman considers the complaint.
Analysis Mrs X accepts an offence was committed when Mr P drove down a road with traffic restrictions in force. But she says the Council should have cancelled the PCN because it was a medical emergency.
The Council has discretion to cancel a PCN if there are suitable mitigating circumstances. This is where the Council believes “there is a good enough reason”. This was explained on the PCN sent to Mrs X.
It is not for me to decide whether the Council should have cancelled the PCN based on what happened. My role is to investigate whether the Council followed the correct procedure in reaching its decision.
I am satisfied the Council did so in this case. It considered the representations made by Mrs X and the evidence she provided. It explained Mr P had a duty to be fully observant and not rely solely on satellite navigation. In response to my enquiries, the Council says no evidence of a medical emergency, such as a hospital letter, was provided in support of her case. On this basis, the Council decided not to cancel the PCN.
Mrs X may consider this decision was unfair, but it was not fault. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
Mrs X also complains about being incorrectly signposted to a right of appeal to the Tribunal that had no prospect of success. I disagree.
The appeal form and guidance notes sent to Mrs X explain the Tribunal can only cancel a PCN on specific grounds. They do not include mitigating circumstances such as a medical emergency. This information is also available on the Council’s website.
Based on this evidence, I am satisfied sufficient information was available to Mrs X that the Tribunal would be unable to cancel the PCN if she based her appeal on mitigating circumstances. It was her choice to pursue an appeal based on this defence only. For this reason, I do not find the Council to be at fault.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman