Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint the Council has failed to provide a refund of £65 for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) she had paid. If Ms B believed the Council had incorrectly issued the PCN, it is reasonable to expect her to have used her right of appeal to an independent tribunal. And further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the way the Council has dealt with the matter since Ms B paid the PCN charge.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms B, says the Council said it would provide a refund and compensation after she paid a £65 Penalty Charge Notice. Ms B complains the Council has failed to provide the refund.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered the information Ms B provided and the information provided by the Council. I sent a draft decision to Ms B and invited comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council issued Ms B with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) in January 2019. Ms B made representations to the Council and the Council rejected these in March 2019. The Council offered Ms B a further opportunity to pay the PCN at the discounted rate of £65, provided she paid this within 14 days. Ms B made payment shortly after and the Council closed its record.
8. Ms B then contacted the Council to ask for a refund. This was because she had received correspondence from the Council that made reference to her case being taken off hold and compensated. Ms B understood this to mean she should receive her payment back.
9. The Council declined to refund Ms B’s payment and is satisfied the PCN was properly issued and as Ms B has paid this rather than make an appeal to an independent tribunal, the case is closed. The Council has confirmed this to Ms B.
10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Whether the PCN was properly issued is not a matter for the Ombudsman. Ms B had a right of appeal to an independent tribunal if she wanted to challenge the PCN and it is reasonable to expect her to have used this right of appeal. By paying the PCN at the discounted rate, Ms B accepted the PCN.
11. There are no reasons for the Ombudsman to say the Council is at fault for not providing a refund to Ms B of the £65 she paid. The Council had written to Ms B to confirm it had rejected her representations. There is no evidence the Council had subsequently said the PCN was issued in error and should be refunded. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision not to provide Ms B with a refund.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable to expect Ms B to have used her right of appeal to an independent tribunal. And further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the way the Council has dealt with the matter since Ms B paid the PCN charge.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman