Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council discriminating against him due to his disability when he tried to appeal a penalty charge notice by failing to make reasonable adjustments. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further worthwhile outcomes as the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy for the fault accepted.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council discriminated against him due to his disability when he tried to appeal a penalty charge notice. He says the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments to meet his needs.

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 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X received a penalty charge notice from the Council. He said he called the Council to appeal the charge but was told he had to submit his appeal in writing. Mr X said his disability meant he could not appeal in writing.
6. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council noted:
• Its standard process where an individual could not appeal in writing was to offer either for a friend or family member to make the appeal on behalf of the individual or to offer an in-person appointment so the individual could be supported to make the appeal. Both options were offered to Mr X, but neither were feasible.
• It could have explored other options with Mr X in a productive manner and that it should have worked with him to find a mutually convenient solution.
• There were failings in the way it communicated with Mr X and apologised for this.
7. In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed following the complaint, Mr X’s penalty charge notice was reduced to the original fee and Mr X subsequently paid this. The Council also confirmed it had offered to take Mr X’s appeal over the phone, but that Mr X declined this.
8. An investigation is not justified as there are no further worthwhile outcomes. The Council has appropriately apologised to Mr X for its poor communication and for not properly exploring alternative options to enable him to submit his appeal. I am also satisfied the evidence shows the Council had offered some adjustments to Mr X at the time which demonstrates the Council appropriately had due regard to its duty to provide reasonable adjustments.
9. Further, the Council has reduced the penalty charge, offered to take the appeal by phone, and apologised. These actions were appropriate to put Mr X back in the position he would have been if not for the accepted fault. I am satisfied an investigation would not lead to any further recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any further worthwhile outcomes as the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy for the fault accepted.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman