Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Fixed Penalty Notice for dropping litter. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council ignored his appeal after he was issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for littering.
2. He says he was forced to pay the fine under duress after being threatened with prosecution.
3. He would like to be compensated for the stress caused to him and the £200 he paid for the fine to be refunded.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council issued Mr X with a FPN for dropping litter. The FPN said Mr X could pay a fine as an alternative to prosecution. It also said he could make representations to the Council.
7. Mr X says he sent in his ‘appeal’ to the Council the day after receiving the fine. He says the Council did not respond instead sending him a letter warning of a court hearing if the fine remained outstanding.
8. Mr X says he paid the fine ‘under duress’. And that he complained to the Council again without receiving any response.
9. The Council says it responded to Mr X’s complaint the day before he complained to the Ombudsman. It said it had not received his appeal and invited him to send it again despite having ended the enforcement process due to the FPN being paid.
10. I will not investigate this complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable. It is the case that Mr X could have withheld payment, and then raised a defence in court, if he did not think he had committed an offence and thought the Council had incorrectly applied the law. The court would have decided if Mr X had committed an offence. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have done this because the courts are the appropriate body to decide if someone has committed an offence or if a council has applied the law correctly.
11. We do not act as an alternative to the courts and can only consider if the Council followed the correct process. I cannot establish what happened to Mr X’s ‘appeal’ to the Council. In any case the Council appears to have acted reasonably by inviting Mr X to send in an ‘appeal’ despite his decision to pay the FPN which effectively ends the enforcement process. This is because payment of a FPN is usually deemed an admission of liability.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman