Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice that the Council issued in error. This is because the Council has provided a satisfactory remedy and because the complainant could have used her appeal rights.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, says the Council should award adequate compensation after it issued a penalty charge notice (PCN) in error.

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 an investigation if we believe the Council has provided a satisfactory remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the complaint and the Council’s response. I considered the Ombudsman’s approach to remedies. I invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Penalty charge notice

6. If someone disagrees with a PCN they can appeal to the tribunal.
7. If, after a PCN has been registered in court, the person does not think the Council has followed the correct process, they can apply to the court to have the process re-started. If the court agrees the Council will re-start the process.

What happened

8. In 2018 the Council issued a PCN for driving in a prohibited area. Ms X paid the fine. The Council issued a second PCN for an offence at the same location. Ms X says she was unaware of the second PCN because she was abroad for most of 2018. Because she was unaware of the PCN Ms X neither paid nor appealed. And, because the Council heard nothing from Ms X, it registered the debt in court and then instructed bailiffs. The bailiffs visited but were unable to collect the debt.
9. In early 2019 Ms X returned to the UK and found out about the PCN. She contacted the Council and applied to the court to have the process restarted. The court agreed. In April 2019 the Council re-issued the PCN. This gave Ms X another chance to pay or appeal. Ms X did neither so the Council followed the correct process until it registered the debt in court and instructed bailiffs for a second time. Bailiffs visited but did not collect any money.
10. In October the Council cancelled the PCN because it realised it had made an error. The images provided for the second PCN were the same as for the first PCN. The Council cancelled the PCN and withdrew all action. Ms X did not pay any money to the bailiffs. The Council awarded compensation of £200.
11. Ms X wants more compensation. She asked the Council for £25,000. Ms X says lodgers signed a 13 month contract in July 2019 but left after one month due to harassment from bailiffs. Ms X wants significant compensation to reflect the loss of rent, other losses and punitive damages.

Assessment

12. I will not start an investigation because the Council has provided a satisfactory remedy and one that is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance. We do not award punitive damages and, if Ms X thinks the Council’s actions directly led to a loss of rent, she will need to take legal action.
13. In addition, Ms X could have used her appeal rights after the Council re-issued the PCN in April. It is reasonable to expect her to have appealed because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider appeals about PCNs. If Ms X had appealed then, on the balance of probabilities, it seems likely the PCN would have been cancelled before the lodgers moved in.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not start an investigation because the Council has provided a satisfactory remedy and because Ms X could have appealed to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman