Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council has wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to him and when he appealed the Council responded in a letter, rejecting his appeal which was unsigned and did not include the name or job title of the person who made the decision.
2. Mr Y says he felt he had to pay the fine, costing him £35, before the amount increased to £70 and would like this to be refunded. Mr Y would like this to be refunded.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council issued a PCN to Mr Y in December 2021. Mr Y emailed the Council later the same day asking to appeal the PCN. The Council responded in early January 2022, rejecting the appeal and explaining its reasons for this. It gave Mr Y further time to pay the fine at the lower amount of £35 before the amount increased to £70 or said Mr Y could appeal further to the Council. The letter for this was signed “PP” but did not include the name or job title of the person who had written the letter.
7. Mr Y later paid the fine at the lower rate and complained to the Council. Mr Y said questioned the validity of the rejection when it did not give the name or job title of the person who had made the decision.
8. The Council responded, explaining that the rejection remained valid and had been printed and posted on behalf of staff working remotely. Mr Y then approached us in February.

Analysis

9. The correspondence shows the Council explained to Mr Y that he could either pay the fine or to appeal the PCN. Mr Y initially appealed the PCN to the Council but after this was rejected, he chose to pay the fine at the lower amount, rather than appeal and risk the fine increasing from £35 to £70.
10. In making this payment instead of appealing if he felt the PCN was not correctly issued, Mr Y accepted his liability for the PCN and the fine the Council had issued. As Mr Y has accepted liability, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating his complaint that the PCN was wrongly issued.
11. Mr Y has also complained the lack of identification of the person who rejected his informal appeal to the Council may mean the rejection is not valid. However, as Mr Y has paid the fine and waived his right to appeal the PCN further, this has not caused him any injustice as he has not, for example, been prevented from appealing the PCN. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman