Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to reply to his representation against a penalty charge notice (PCN) and did not deal with his complaint or communicate with him properly. There is insufficient injustice to investigate. Generally, the Council communicated with Mr X appropriately and did not cause Mr X significant time or trouble. The Council reset the PCN fine so Mr X can pay the discounted rate of £25.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to reply to his representation against a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued in February 2022 for parking without a ticket. Mr X accepts he committed the parking contravention, but says he lost the opportunity to pay the discounted rate.
2. Mr X complains the Council’s complaint handling and communication was poor. He says the complaint section sent his May complaint to the parking section to deal with. Mr X says the Council caused him stress, anxiety and he felt ignored.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered Mr X’s information and comments. The Council has provided the penalty charge notice (PCN) documents and complaint correspondence.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reason:
6. There is insufficient injustice for the Ombudsman to investigate. On 13 June the Council sent Mr X a notice of rejection which reset the PCN fine to the discounted rate of £25. The notice explains the PCN procedure and options, the Council’s earlier decision not to cancel the PCN, and covers Mr X’s complaint of 27 May. Mr X says he did not receive the Council’s rejection of his representation which the Council says it emailed him on 22 April. The rejection letter deals with the representation and was correctly addressed. The Council does not need to prove receipt only that the reply was sent. There is no reason to look further into the matter as the Council’s actions have corrected any error.
7. There is no fault in the Council’s complaint handling or subsequent communication. The complaint service communicated with Mr X appropriately and explained why it was asking the parking section to deal with it. That enabled the parking section to act in Mr X’s favour by resetting the fine to the discounted rate of £25 rather than £50.
8. There is no injustice caused to Mr X by him contacting the Council in May given the small number of communications. His earlier communication was his representation on 4 March.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to reply to his representation against a penalty charge notice (PCN) and did not deal with his complaint or communicate properly. There is insufficient injustice to investigate. Generally, the Council communicated with Mr X appropriately and did not cause Mr X time and trouble. The Council reset the PCN fine so Mr X can pay the discounted rate of £25.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman