Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is not significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained the Council failed to respond to her representations against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and then after she had the order for the penalty debt set aside, the Council has not considered her representations and said that she should pay £30.
2. Mrs Y says this has wasted her time and energy having the order overturned, causing her frustration.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mrs Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council issued a PCN to Mrs Y in October 2021. Mrs Y sent representations to the Council against the PCN which were acknowledged. Mrs Y says she did not receive a response from the Council when she then provided further evidence. She then received an Order for Recovery from the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), based at Northampton County Court.
6. Mrs Y used her right to ask the TEC to set aside the Order on the basis that she had not received a response to her representations. The TEC agreed to do this.
7. The Council then wrote to Mrs Y, saying it had not received any formal representations from her. It said it had reduced the penalty back to the reduced rate of £30 and it needed to be paid or the amount and process would progress again. Mrs Y then approached us.

Analysis

8. It is our role, if we find fault, to try to put a person back in the position, they would have been in had the fault not occurred. As part of our assessment stage, we contacted the Council. It updated us, saying the PCN had been cancelled in the middle of August. This removes any penalty attached, which has placed Mrs Y back in the position, for the PCN at least, that she would have been in had it not been issued.
9. The remaining alleged injustice is the time Mrs Y spent in using the statutory process to appeal to the TEC and later to us and the frustration Mrs Y has felt. While Mrs Y may have felt frustrated, this is not significant enough of an injustice to warrant our involvement. Consequently, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because there is not significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman