Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council issuing her a Fixed Penalty Notice for littering. This is because Mrs X could have used her right to raise a defence against the matter in court if she believed there was fault in the way it was issued.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council issued her a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for littering in dropping a cigarette butt. Mrs X says she did not commit the alleged offence and the officer did not correctly describe the offence when issuing the FPN.

Back to top

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)
3. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X was issued a FPN by the Council for littering. Mrs X paid the FPN at an early stage in order to prevent it from increasing and the matter escalating rather than using her right to raise a defence against its issue in the magistrates court.
7. Mrs X then sought to appeal the issuing of the FPN to the Council.
8. The Council told Mrs X it considered the FPN was correctly issued and that as she had paid the FPN the matter was now closed.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mrs X could have used her right to raise a defence against the matter in court if she believed there was fault in the issuing of the FPN. That is the appropriate route to use to challenge the matter rather than to this office, having already paid the FPN. We are not an appeal body and we cannot decide whether there was fault in the way the FPN was issued; whether the alleged offence of littering was committed nor whether Mrs X was liable. These are matters the court would have considered and ruled on had Mrs X used her right to defend the matter in court instead of paying the FPN.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the appropriate route to challenge and defend the matter was to raise a defence against the issuing of the FPN in court instead of paying it. The court would then have reached a decision on the issues raised here.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman