Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because the Council cancelled the Penalty Charge Notice in its complaint handling so there is no worthwhile outcome we could achieve from investigating and there is not enough remaining injustice to warrant our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council did not tell him about his right to appeal a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), delayed in investigating his complaint and pursued enforcement of the PCN while his complaint was ongoing.
2. Mr Y says this caused him distress and anxiety at having the PCN enforced against him and prevented him from making an appeal before the deadline passed, causing him further distress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information Mr Y and the Council had provided. Mr Y had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to Mr Y in July 2019. The Council rejected Mr Y’s challenge to the PCN in August 2019, following which he complained. The Council responded in September, denying any fault. Mr Y then asked the Council to reconsider his complaint.
8. In an email about his complaint in November, the Council told Mr Y he had had the right to appeal the PCN until October 2019. Mr Y replied, saying the Council had not informed him of his right to appeal until after the deadline had passed. At this stage Mr Y approached the Ombudsman to try to progress his complaint. However, as the Council had not yet provided its final response and was willing to do so, Mr Y was referred to the Council to try to resolve.
9. The Council then provided its final response to Mr Y in January 2020, which upheld part of his complaint and agreed to cancel the PCN issued. Mr Y then contacted the Ombudsman about his complaint in November 2020.

Analysis

10. When Mr Y originally complained to the Ombudsman his complaint concerns a PCN which the Council had issued. Mr Y has further complained the Council did not tell him about his right to appeal which he says prevented him from making an appeal before the deadline.
11. The Council cancelled the PCN in its complaint response in January 2020. An appeal would have focused on the validity of the PCN. Cancelling the PCN means the Council remedied the injustice of the PCN itself and in turn remedied any injustice from it not informing Mr Y of his appeal rights. There is no worthwhile outcome the Ombudsman can achieve from investigating this matter as it has already been remedied during the Council’s complaints process.
12. Mr Y says the Council’s action to pursue the PCN caused him distress and anxiety. However, had the Council have made Mr Y aware of his appeal rights, which Mr Y says it failed to do, he would have followed the appeals process regardless. Consequently, this distress is about the process of appealing the PCN, which Mr Y would have experienced whether the Council was at fault or not. Therefore, there is no significant injustice to warrant an investigation in this complaint.
13. Mr Y has complained about delay in the Council’s investigation of his complaint. However, as we should not investigate the other issues of complaint, we would not generally investigate a complaint about how a complaint has been dealt with by a Council. Further as any distress caused by a delay would not be significant enough injustice to warrant us investigating this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council cancelled the PCN in its complaint handling so there is no worthwhile outcome we could achieve from investigating and there is not enough remaining injustice to warrant our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman