Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his representations against a penalty charge notice. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the process causing Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to respond to his representations against a penalty charge notice (PCN). He is unhappy the Council has increased the amount of the penalty charge from the initial discounted rate of £60 to £180. He also complains he was unable to contact the Council to discuss the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Although Mr X did not receive a response to his representations against the PCN the Council confirms one was sent. It has provided a copy and it is correctly addressed. We could not therefore say on balance that the Council is responsible for its non-delivery.
5. Mr X is now aware of the Council’s response but says that because it took more than 56 days the Council should cancel the PCN. But the evidence shows Mr X submitted his representation on 30 September 2021 and the Council rejected it on 23 November 2021, which was 54 days later.
6. But even if the Council did exceed the 56-day period this would not have automatically invalidated the PCN. The question for us is whether any fault in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s representations caused him significant injustice and I have seen no evidence to show that it has. Mr X missed out on his right to appeal against the PCN because he did not receive the Council’s response rather than because of the length of time it took to respond and as set out above we could not attribute this to any fault. There is also no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s representations against the PCN.
7. The Council has now escalated the PCN to the next stage of the process and the penalty charge amount has increased to £180. It is unclear whether Mr X has now paid the PCN but if he is not, and if he wishes to challenge it further, he may wish to wait for the Council to issue an ‘order for recovery’ and register the unpaid PCN with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. Once a PCN reaches this stage a motorist to make a statutory declaration on certain grounds including that they made representations against a PCN and did not receive a response. If the TEC accepts the statutory declaration it may take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the PCN and reinstating the motorist’s right of appeal against it. Mr X’s wife is the registered keeper of the vehicle and as such it is she that is liable for the PCN and who would have the right to make a statutory declaration.
8. Mr X is also unhappy that he has been unable to contact the Council to discuss the matter and with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at these issues if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s representations or preventing Mr X from appealing against the PCN.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman