Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his informal challenge to a penalty charge notice (PCN). He believed the case was on hold but the Council sent his employer a demand for £130, which he has now paid.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, shared my draft decision with him and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council issued a PCN for a bus lane contravention in 2019. Mr X’s employer is the registered keeper of the vehicle but Mr X was driving at the time of the contravention. The Council sent the PCN to Mr X’s employer as it remains liable for any PCN issued in respect of the vehicle.
5. Mr X’s employer passed the PCN to Mr X and Mr X informally challenged it with the Council. He submitted his challenge online in October 2019 and says he did not receive a response, however the Council has provided a copy of the rejection notice which it sent to Mr X at the address he provided, in November.
6. Because Mr X did not receive the Council’s response he did not pay the PCN. The Council therefore issued an enforcement notice in accordance with the statutory process confirming the full amount of £130 was due. Mr X says his employer paid the PCN and is now seeking to recover payment from him.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Because Mr X is not the registered keeper of the vehicle he is not directly affected by the issue of the PCN. He is affected only as a result of his apparent agreement with his employer to indemnify it for any PCNs issued while he is using the vehicle.
8. However even if we could attribute his injustice to the Council’s actions it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council or that we could recommend any remedy. This is because the evidence shows the Council did respond to Mr X’s online challenge. It is unclear why Mr X may not have received the response but it is correctly addressed and we could not therefore say the Council was at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman