The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s vehicle being clamped even though she had paid the associated penalty charges. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council has already taken satisfactory action in response to the complaint.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, says the Council should not have clamped her vehicle as she had already attempted to pay the associated penalty charge notices (PCNs).
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 are satisfied with the actions a Council has already taken in response to the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council, which consisted of the complaint correspondence associated with the case.
I also considered our Assessment Code.
Legal and administrative background The Council enforces parking restrictions and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the Traffic Management Act 2004 and associated Regulations. Councils and motorists must follow these procedures. The enforcement process provides motorists with the right of appeal to a statutory tribunal and it is the way in which Parliament expects people to challenge a PCN.
The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 require the owner of a vehicle to immediately inform the DVLA of any change of address. It is an offence under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 to use a vehicle where the correct address is not held by the DVLA.
Enforcement authorities will initially send any formal documents using keeper details provided by the DVLA.
Summary of what happened The Council issued Ms X with four PCNs between November 2020 and May 2021.
On 3 September 2021, in response to a complaint from Ms X about one of the PCN’s, the Council explained she had failed to inform the DVLA of her new address. The enforcement documents associated with the PCNs had therefore been sent to her old address. I understand the Council reissued the enforcement documents to give Ms X another opportunity to either challenge or pay the penalty charges. Ms X did not make any representations or pay the PCNs, choosing instead to contact her MP.
The MP wrote to the Council on 29 November 2021. It replied on 18 February 2022, explaining the background to the PCNs, and confirmed Ms X should now pay the PCNs or they would be passed to an enforcement agent, which would result in further charges.
The MP forwarded this information to Ms X on 7 March 2022, and she attempted to pay the four PCNs on 11 March 2022. However, the PCNs had already been passed to enforcement agents on 1 March 2022, so the amount outstanding for each PCN had increased beyond the amount Ms X had paid. An enforcement agent therefore visited Ms X’s property on 16 March 2022 and clamped her vehicle.
Ms X complained to the Council, and it eventually agreed to accept Ms X’s payments and waive the outstanding fees. The vehicle was released on 1 April 2022.
My assessment
I have decided we should not start an investigation because the removal of the clamp and waiving of the outstanding fees was a satisfactory response to the complaint. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that: If Ms X had informed the DVLA of her change of address, she is likely to have received the original enforcement documents.
The Council reissued the enforcement documents, giving Ms X another opportunity to either pay or challenge the PCNs, but she failed to follow this statutory enforcement process.
The Council was not responsible for the time it took the MP to forward the Council’s 18 February email to Ms X.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the Council has already taken satisfactory action in response to the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman