Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council tried to blackmail the complainant over a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice. In addition, the matter has been considered by the tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council tried to blackmail him and then backtracked when he confronted officers. Mr X wants an apology and for the officer who issued the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to be investigated.

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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered the decision made by the tribunal and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

London Tribunals

6. The tribunal adjudicator does not usually ask a council to pay costs or expenses to a successful appellant. The tribunal only awards costs in rare circumstances where the adjudicator decides that a council or the appellant has acted frivolously, vexatiously and wholly unreasonably.

Penalty Charge Notice

7. The law says the person can pay a PCN at a reduced rate if they pay promptly and do not appeal. If they do not pay promptly, or they unsuccessfully appeal to the tribunal, they must pay the fine at the standard rate.

What happened

8. The Council issued Mr X with a PCN. Mr X appealed to the tribunal. Mr X strongly disputed the PCN and told the Council he required it to pay all his costs linked to his appeal. For example, he said he required compensation for time off from work and witness costs.
9. The Council told the tribunal it would not contest the appeal. The tribunal decided to cancel the PCN because the Council had decided not to contest it.
10. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council agreed it had issued the PCN in error. It apologised and said the case had identified a training need for the enforcement officer. The Council explained that a senior officer reviews cases before they are considered by the tribunal. In this case the senior officer decided to cancel the PCN before the appeal was heard. The Council explained this is the normal practice and did not imply there had been any attempt to blackmail Mr X.
11. Mr X says the Council only reviewed the case because he said he would make a claim for costs. Mr X also says that he would still have been out of pocket if he had successfully appealed because of the loss of his time. Mr X says the Council said it would increase the fine if he appealed.

Assessment

12. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
13. The case has been considered by the tribunal. The law says we cannot investigate any issue that has been considered by the tribunal.
14. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The PCN was issued in error but the process worked correctly because the error was identified during the review process and the PCN was cancelled. The Council apologised to Mr X for the inconvenience and said training would be offered to the officer. In addition, the Council would have known the tribunal only awards costs for exceptional reasons so it is unlikely it would have decided to review the case only because Mr X had threatened to claim costs. And, the Council did not threaten to increase the fine. Instead, as prescribed by the regulations, the discounted rate is only available for a short period of time.
15. Finally, I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice because the PCN was cancelled and Mr X did not incur any costs while appealing to the tribunal.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice, and because Mr X appealed to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman