Not upheld: unfair administration of Penalty Charge Notices and process fairness complaint against Zenauto Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained about Zenauto's process of automatically paying Penalty Charge Notices before allowing him to appeal, arguing this prevented meaningful challenge of the charges. Zenauto's finance agreement permitted them to pay PCNs on Mr S's behalf and recharge the amounts with administration fees. The ombudsman found that while the pay-first approach could affect appeal timing, Mr S retained the ability to appeal all PCNs, Zenauto exercised discretion by reviewing charges and waiving some fees, and there was no evidence outcomes would have differed with delayed payment. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while a pay-first approach can affect a customer's ability to challenge PCNs, Mr S was still able to appeal all PCNs and there was no persuasive evidence that outcomes would have been materially different had payment been delayed. Zenauto demonstrated discretionary exercise by reviewing PCNs, contacting authorities, and waiving some charges. The ombudsman noted that the agreement terms clearly permitted the practice and that financial hardship does not remove the underlying liability for PCNs or make recovery unfair.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website