The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about two Penalty Charge Notices because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council issued her with two Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) even though she had paid for the parking. Mrs X was driving a lease car and the company paid the fines and charged Mrs X. Mrs X wants a refund.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mrs X to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
The registered keeper of a car is the person who is required to pay a PCN or appeal. If the car is leased then the keeper can transfer those responsibilities to the company that leases the car. When the lease company hires out the car there is often a clause in the hire agreement about what will happen regarding PCNs incurred during the period of the hire.
Mrs X drives a car which she hires. She paid for parking but made a mistake and did not register the car registration correctly. The Council issued two PCNs. The PCNs were not on the car when Mrs X returned but she has seen photographs which show they were placed on the car.
The Council sent a Notice to Owner, for each PCN, to the registered keeper. The registered keeper responded by saying the car was leased to a different company. The Council re-issued the Notice to Owner to the lease company. The company paid both PCNs and the Council closed both cases.
Mrs X has been charged by the company she hires the car from. She wants a refund because, while she agrees she made a mistake with payment app, she did pay for her parking.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council followed the correct process by sending the Notice to Owner to the registered keeper and then to the company from whom Mrs X hires the car. It was for that company to decide whether to pay or appeal. The company chose to pay so, from the Council’s perspective, the cases are closed.
Mrs X is neither the registered keeper nor the person responsible for paying or appealing – unless those responsibilities were transferred to her as part of the agreement with the company. If Mrs X does not think the company handled the PCNs in accordance with the hire agreement then that is a matter Mrs X would need to take up with the company. But, there are no grounds to ask the Council for a refund because there is no direct agreement or relationship between Mrs X and the Council.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman