Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his correspondence about a penalty charge notice. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council issued him a penalty charge notice (PCN) by post which was not properly printed. He also complains that in response to his contact about the issue the Council accused him of fabricating documents and committing fraud. He wants the Council to apologise, investigate how the printing error occurred and take action to stop it from happening again.

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. Mr X’s representative, Mr Y, confirms Mr X’s complaint does not concern the PCN itself; Mr X has paid the penalty charge and refers to the cost as a nominal amount.
5. Mr X’s complaint focuses on the printing issue and the Council’s response to his correspondence about the issue. I appreciate these points have caused Mr X concern but the injustice he claims is not significant enough to warrant investigation. They also do not raise issues of significant concern to the wider public.
6. The Council’s email referred to a previous case considered by London Tribunals where it was found that a PCN claimed to have been printed incorrectly was a photocopy. It stated it and London Tribunals were “fully aware of this fraudulent method and will be contesting all appeals of this nature…” The Council’s email did not specifically accuse Mr X of fraud and is not in the public domain; there is therefore no real risk to Mr X’s reputation and he does not have to clear his name.
7. In any event it is unlikely we could get to the bottom of whether and why the Council issued any PCNs which were not properly printed as we cannot forensically examine documents. The fact London Tribunals has considered appeals on this point also shows they are the correct body to decide whether PCNs are valid and they do so on a case by case basis. Any motorist who receives an incomplete PCN may therefore appeal to London Tribunals. They may also complain to the Council and bring their complaint to us; we will then consider whether their complaint meets the tests set out in our Assessment Code.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman