Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a fixed penalty notice for school non-attendance. This is because Ms X paid the penalty charge, so it is not appropriate for us to investigate it. The Council apologised for sending a further letter in error. It is unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more for Ms X on that point.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to issue a fixed penalty notice (FPN) for her child’s absence from school. She says the absence was due to Ms X’s illness which prevented her taking her child to school. She believes the Council did not consider her medical evidence or extenuating circumstances.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council issued Ms X with a FPN for her child’s non-attendance at school. Ms X challenged the notice, providing medical evidence but the Council said it would stand. Ms X then paid the penalty charge.
6. We will not investigate whether the Council should have issued the FPN. This is because Ms X paid the penalty charge. If she believed the FPN was unjustified, she need not have paid. The Council would then have had to decide whether to prosecute Ms X for her child’s non-attendance. If the Council had decided not to prosecute, Ms X would not have had to pay. If the Council had decided to prosecute, Ms X could have argued her case in court, and the court would have decided whether the Council was justified in taking action. That is the more appropriate route for deciding whether an offence has occurred.
7. After payment, the Council sent Ms X a letter warning it was considering taking court action for non-payment of the charge. When Ms X explained she had already paid, the Council apologised and confirmed it would take no further action.
8. We will also not investigate the later letter. The Council has already apologised for the error, and there is nothing more we can achieve.

Final decision

We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because she paid the penalty charge so it would not be appropriate for us to investigate whether the Council should have issued it. Nor could we achieve more than the Council’s apology for the mistaken warning letter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman