The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handed a parking fine. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s response regarding a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The events have caused stress and a financial burden. Mr X wants a refund and apology.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes correspondence between Mr X and the Council, and the letters the Council and bailiffs sent to Mr X. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
Council must follow a statutory process in relation to PCNs. If a person neither pays nor appeals councils can register a PCN in court and instruct bailiffs. Bailiffs charge fees; the level of the fees is stated in the regulations.
The Council issued a PCN for a parking contravention. The fine was £50 with a 50% reduction for prompt payment. Mr X says he challenged the fine but did not get a reply. The Council says it did not receive a challenge from the Mr X.
The Council sent a Notice to Owner; this gave Mr X the chance to pay £50 or appeal. The Council did not get a reply so it sent a Charge Certificate which increased the fine and warned of legal action. The Council did not get a response so it registered the debt in court. The Council sent an Order for Recovery which explained Mr X could apply for a witness statement; a person can apply for a witness statement if they made representations against a PCN and did not get a reply. The Council sent all the documents to the correct address.
The Council instructed bailiffs. The bailiffs asked Mr X to pay £159; this was the PCN plus the initial bailiff fee of £75. The bailiffs gave Mr X a deadline to respond and used the correct address. Mr X did not respond so the bailiffs visited and charged a visit fee. Mr X paid £394 due to the distress caused by the visit; the payment was for the PCN and bailiff fees.
Mr X complained to the Council. He said he had not had a reply to his challenge and did not receive any letters from the Council or bailiffs. He said the fees were excessive. He asked for a refund and offered to pay the PCN at the initial rate. In response the Council said it had not received any challenged from Mr X, it had followed the correct process, and the case was closed.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I do not know why Mr X did not get any of the letters but the Council sent all the letters it was required to send and used the correct address. The Council is not responsible for any problems with the post. There is nothing to suggest fault in the way the Council handled the PCN. The Order for Recovery gave Mr X the chance to apply for a witness statement and, while Mr X says he did not receive this document, the Council acted correctly by sending it. The Council correctly explained that it was too late to appeal.
Mr X complained he heard nothing from the bailiffs in advance of the visit and says the fees are excessive. But, again, the bailiffs gave Mr X a chance to pay before visit fees were incurred and they sent the letter to the correct address. The bailiffs charged the correct fees as stated in the regulations.
I appreciate Mr X feels he has been treated badly but there is no indication of fault by the Council and no reason to start an investigation.
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