Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains the Council has wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to her, after a company she paid to park her car, did so incorrectly. Miss Y is unhappy the Council has refused to refund her payment of the penalty and refused to reissue the PCN to the parking company instead.
2. Miss Y feels this is unfair and she has had to borrow money to pay the PCN to prevent the amount from increasing.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Miss Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council issued a PCN for Miss Y’s vehicle in September 2021. Miss Y had instructed a third-party company to park her vehicle while she travelled from a nearby airport. She says the third party was in charge of her vehicle when it was parked.
6. Miss Y then paid the PCN in September. She says she borrowed money from family to cover this cost as she was concerned about the penalty increasing if it was not paid. Miss Y contacted the Council in January 2022, trying to appeal the PCN. However, when Miss Y paid the PCN, she also waived her right to appeal the PCN. Consequently, the Council refused this appeal. Miss Y complained to the Council in February.
7. The Council responded in February. It explained Miss Y had had the option to either pay or appeal the PCN and she had chosen to pay the penalty. Consequently, she no longer had the right to appeal the PCN. It then said the payment of the PCN had been made so any dispute over responsibility for the cost was between her and the third-party company. Miss Y then approached us.

Analysis

8. In paying the penalty included with the PCN, Miss Y accepted her liability for the PCN and therefore waived her right to appeal. As she has accepted her liability, the Council is not obliged to consider whether a third-party may have been liable for the PCN. This would potentially have been an issue for appeal prior to Miss Y making payment.
9. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s refusal to refund the payment or refusal to reissue the PCN to the third-party company instead, to justify an investigation. We will therefore not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman